On Tue 20 Nov 04:22 PST 2018, Arun Kumar Neelakantam wrote:
Thanks for the review Arun.
> On 11/12/2018 1:35 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
> > +int qmp_send(struct qmp *qmp, const void *data, size_t len)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(len + sizeof(u32) > qmp->size)) {
> > + dev_err(qmp->dev, "message too long\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(len % sizeof(u32))) {
> > + dev_err(qmp->dev, "message not 32-bit aligned\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&qmp->tx_lock);
> > +
> > + if (!qmp_message_empty(qmp)) {
> > + dev_err(qmp->dev, "mailbox left busy\n");
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> should it be -EBUSY ?
That makes more sense.
> And qmp_messge_empty will be done either by remote if it process the data
> else by this driver in TIMEOUT case, so does we need this check for every TX
> ? I think we can just reset to Zero once in open time.
Didn't think about that, should we really make the QMP link ready again
when we get a timeout? Can we expect that the firmware of the remote
side is ready to serve future messages?
Should we keep this check and remove the writel() below?
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* The message RAM only implements 32-bit accesses */
> > + __iowrite32_copy(qmp->msgram + qmp->offset + sizeof(u32),
> > + data, len / sizeof(u32));
> > + writel(len, qmp->msgram + qmp->offset);
> > + qmp_kick(qmp);
> > +
> > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(qmp->event,
> > + qmp_message_empty(qmp), HZ);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + dev_err(qmp->dev, "ucore did not ack channel\n");
> > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +
> > + writel(0, qmp->msgram + qmp->offset);
> > + } else {
> > + ret = 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > +out_unlock:
> > + mutex_unlock(&qmp->tx_lock);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
Regards,
Bjorn
