Hi Jassi, On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:23 AM Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jassi, > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:25 AM Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 8:29 AM Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jassi, > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:10 AM Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The Spreadtrum mailbox controller supports 8 channels to communicate > > > > with MCUs, and it contains 2 different parts: inbox and outbox, which > > > > are used to send and receive messages by IRQ mode. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes from v3: > > > > - Save the id in mbox_chan.con_priv and remove the 'sprd_mbox_chan' > > > > > > > > Changes from v2: > > > > - None. > > > > > > > > Changes from v1: > > > > - None > > > > > > Gentle ping, do you have any other comments? Thanks. > > > > > Yea, I am still not sure about the error returned in send_data(). It > > will either never hit or there will be no easy recovery from it. The > > api expects the driver to tell it the last-tx was done only when it > > can send the next message. (There may be case like sending depend on > > remote, which can't be ensured before hand). > > Actually this is an unusual case, suppose the remote target did not > fetch the message as soon as possile, which will cause the FIFO > overflow, so in this case we can not send messages to the remote > target any more, otherwise messages will be lost. Thus we can return > errors to users to indicate that something wrong with the remote > target need to be checked. > > So this validation in send_data() is mostly for debugging for this > abnormal case and we will not trigger this issue if the remote target > works well. So I think it is useful to keep this validation in > send_data(). Thanks. Any comments? Thanks. -- Baolin Wang
