On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 03:44:43PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:

+	if (status & CEC_STATUS_TX_DONE) {
+		if (status & CEC_STATUS_TX_ERROR) {
+			dev_dbg(cec->dev, "CEC_STATUS_TX_ERROR set\n");
+			cec->tx = STATE_ERROR;
+		} else {
+			dev_dbg(cec->dev, "CEC_STATUS_TX_DONE\n");
+			cec->tx = STATE_DONE;
+		}
+		s5p_clr_pending_tx(cec);
+	}

Your CEC implementation seems to be written around the idea that there
are only two possible outcomes from a CEC message - "done" and "error",
which get translated to:

+	case STATE_DONE:
+		cec_transmit_done(cec->adap, CEC_TX_STATUS_OK);
+		cec->tx = STATE_IDLE;
+		break;
+	case STATE_ERROR:
+		cec_transmit_done(cec->adap, CEC_TX_STATUS_RETRY_TIMEOUT);
+		cec->tx = STATE_IDLE;

"okay" and "retry_timeout".  So, if we have an adapter which can report
(eg) a NACK, we have to report it as the obscure "retry timeout" status?
Why this obscure naming - why can't we have something that uses the
terminology in the spec?

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.