On 2019-11-20 04:47, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Tue 19 Nov 02:18 PST 2019, sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hey Bjorn,
Thanks for taking the time to
review the series :)
On 2019-11-19 12:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon 18 Nov 06:27 PST 2019, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/pdr_interface.c
> > b/drivers/soc/qcom/pdr_interface.c
> [..]
> > +static void pdr_indack_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct pdr_handle *pdr = container_of(work, struct pdr_handle,
> > + indack_work);
> > + struct pdr_list_node *ind, *tmp;
> > + struct pdr_service *pds;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(ind, tmp, &pdr->indack_list, node) {
> > + pds = ind->pds;
> > + pdr_send_indack_msg(pdr, pds, ind->transaction_id);
>
> So when we et a ind_cb with the new status, we need to send an ack
> request, which will result in a response, just to confirm that we got
> the event?
>
> Seems like we should fix the qmi code to make it possible to send a
> request from the indication handler and then we could simply ignore the
yeah maybe having a provision to send custom requests back on
indication would be the way to go. Not all indication need to be
services with requests.
Let's put this on the todo list.
> response. Or do we need to not pdr->status() until we get the response
> for some reason?
adsp waits on the ack response for a fixed duration and seems to throw
a fatal err is the ack is not serviced. Hence holding back pd->status
till we service the ack here.
You mean to ensure that someone sleeping in pd->status() doesn't delay
that until its too late?
yes
[..]
> > +int pdr_handle_init(struct pdr_handle *pdr,
> > + int (*status)(struct pdr_handle *pdr,
> > + struct pdr_service *pds))
> > +{
> [..]
> > + pdr->servreg_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("pdr_servreg_wq");
> > + if (!pdr->servreg_wq)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + pdr->indack_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("pdr_indack_wq",
> > WQ_HIGHPRI);
>
> The two workqueues means that we should be able to call pdr->status()
> rom two concurrent contexts, I don't think our clients will expect that.
>
would creating another ordered wq to relay all the pd->status make
sense?
I would prefer less work queues ;) But I presume you split out the
indack_wq in order to improve the likelihood of meeting the latency
requirements of the remote side.
Perhaps just wrap the status() calls with a status-mutex and then
remove
that by reworking the QMI interface to allow us to remove the indack
work?
okay will fix it in the next
re-spin.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
