On Jan 10 2023 12:07, Sibi Sankar wrote:
...
> +static int __scm_smc_do_quirk_handle_waitq(struct device *dev, struct arm_smccc_args *waitq,
> + struct arm_smccc_res *res)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct arm_smccc_args resume;
> + u32 wq_ctx, smc_call_ctx, flags;
> + struct arm_smccc_args *smc = waitq;
> +
> + do {
> + __scm_smc_do_quirk(smc, res);
> +
> + if (res->a0 == QCOM_SCM_WAITQ_SLEEP) {
> + wq_ctx = res->a1;
> + smc_call_ctx = res->a2;
> + flags = res->a3;
> +
> + if (!dev)
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +
> + ret = qcom_scm_lookup_completion(wq_ctx);
I see that this function has been created in response to Bjorn's comment [1]
about avoiding the dev_get_drvdata() call, but I would prefer to not use this
function as it hides the fact that the wait_for_completion() is occurring here.
Knowing where the waiting is happening is useful not just for understanding
code flow but also for debugging issues in the future.
...
> +static struct completion *qcom_scm_lookup_wq(struct qcom_scm *scm, u32 wq_ctx)
> +{
This function is called qcom_scm_lookup_wq() but there is no looking up
occurring here. Could this comment be added for context?
/* FW currently only supports a single wq_ctx (zero).
* TODO: Update this logic to include dynamic allocation and lookup of
* completion structs when FW supports more wq_ctx values.
*/
> + /* assert wq_ctx is zero */
> + if (wq_ctx != 0) {
> + dev_err(scm->dev, "No waitqueue found for wq_ctx %d\n", wq_ctx);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> +
> + return &scm->waitq_comp;
> +}
> +
...
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221208221125.bflo7unhcrgfsgbr@xxxxxxxxxxx/
