On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:02:36AM -0700, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> [...]
>> > Maybe something like this patch would be more correct in handling
>> > this:
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> > index afcb430508ec..85691a7d8ca6 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>> > @@ -117,10 +117,11 @@ static void poll_txdone(unsigned long data)
>> > struct mbox_chan *chan = &mbox->chans[i];
>> >
>> > if (chan->active_req && chan->cl) {
>> > - resched = true;
>> > txdone = chan->mbox->ops->last_tx_done(chan);
>> > if (txdone)
>> > tx_tick(chan, 0);
>> > + else
>> > + resched = true;
>> > }
>> > }
>>
>> ... but we still need to re-arm the timer if tx_tick() submits another
>> message. Perhaps the better thing to do is to have msg_submit() arm
>> the timer.
>
> I think we need both. If the last transmission isn't done yet we still
> want to keep polling. And we also want to poll if a new message is sent
> subsequently.
>
> Perhaps it would be as easy as moving the poll handling code from
> mbox_send_message() (if (chan->txdone_method == TXDONE_BY_POLL)) into
> msg_submit()? That has the additional advantage of being able to omit
> the polling when an error happens during the mbox' .send_data().
Yes, this is exactly what I've done :).
--
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
