Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:38:43 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] platform/chrome: Add Chrome OS EC userspace device interface | From | Olof Johansson <> |
| |
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> wrote: > Hello Olof, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > On 02/26/2015 02:13 AM, Gwendal Grignou wrote: >> Olof, >> >> I think the way Javier did it is fine, the 'major' of the ioctl is >> 0xEC, from ':'. >> >> Gwendal. >> > > As Gwendal said, I deliberately changed the IOCTL mayor number to > make it different in both kernels. > > downstream: > > #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOC ':' > #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCXCMD _IOWR(':', 0, struct cros_ec_command) > #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCRDMEM _IOWR(':', 1, struct cros_ec_readmem) > > mainline: > > #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOC 0xEC > #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCXCMD _IOWR(CROS_EC_DEV_IOC, 0, struct cros_ec_command) > #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCRDMEM _IOWR(CROS_EC_DEV_IOC, 1, struct cros_ec_readmem) > > I can also do what you suggested and keep ':' as the major and use 2/3 > as command numbers but I just think 0xEC is a much nicer major for the > interface to talk with the Embedded Controller and it was available ;)
No, changing major is definitely sufficient and an acceptable way to do it -- I had missed that you did so.
Thanks, Javier, Gwendal, I'll apply this today and push out. Gwendal has been giving it a go on a machine here too so I'll check with him before I push.
-Olof
|  |