On 17-02-16 10:20 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Jonathan Richardson
> <jonathan.richardson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +static int iproc_mbox_send_data_m0(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct iproc_mbox *mbox = dev_get_drvdata(chan->mbox->dev);
>> + struct iproc_mbox_msg *msg = (struct iproc_mbox_msg *)data;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int err = 0;
>> + const int poll_period_us = 5;
>> + const int max_retries = (MAX_M0_TIMEOUT_MS * 1000) / poll_period_us;
>> +
>> + if (!msg)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&mbox->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + dev_dbg(mbox->dev, "Send msg to M0: cmd=0x%x, param=0x%x, wait_ack=%d\n",
>> + msg->cmd, msg->param, msg->wait_ack);
>> +
> prints should be outside the spinlocks.
Will fix.
>
>> + writel(msg->cmd, mbox->base + IPROC_CRMU_MAILBOX0_OFFSET);
>> + writel(msg->param, mbox->base + IPROC_CRMU_MAILBOX1_OFFSET);
>> +
>> + if (msg->wait_ack) {
>> + int retries;
>> +
> move poll_period_us and max_retries in here or just define' them
Will fix.
>
>> + err = msg->reply_code = -ETIMEDOUT;
>> + for (retries = 0; retries < max_retries; retries++) {
>> + u32 val = readl(
>> + mbox->base + IPROC_CRMU_MAILBOX0_OFFSET);
>> + if (val & M0_IPC_CMD_DONE_MASK) {
>> + /*
>> + * M0 replied - save reply code and
>> + * clear error.
>> + */
>> + msg->reply_code = (val &
>> + M0_IPC_CMD_REPLY_MASK) >>
>> + M0_IPC_CMD_REPLY_SHIFT;
>> + err = 0;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + udelay(poll_period_us);
>>
> potentially 2ms inside spin_lock_irqsave. Alternative is to implement
> a simple 'peek_data' and call it for requests with 'wait_ack'
The M0 responds in very few microseconds. The 2ms is an arbitrary value that came from the clients tx_tout being specified in ms. I can reduce the timeout to something smaller. No need to peek for data.
Thanks,
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
