Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for your comments,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:16:27PM GMT, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:36:49PM GMT, Sandor Yu wrote:
> > > +static int cdns_mhdp8501_read_hpd(struct cdns_mhdp8501_device
> > > +*mhdp) {
> > > + u8 status;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&mhdp_mailbox_mutex);
> > > +
> > > + ret = cdns_mhdp_mailbox_send(&mhdp->base,
> MB_MODULE_ID_GENERAL,
> > > + GENERAL_GET_HPD_STATE, 0,
> NULL);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto err_get_hpd;
> > > +
> > > + ret = cdns_mhdp_mailbox_recv_header(&mhdp->base,
> MB_MODULE_ID_GENERAL,
> > > + GENERAL_GET_HPD_STATE,
> > > + sizeof(status));
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto err_get_hpd;
> > > +
> > > + ret = cdns_mhdp_mailbox_recv_data(&mhdp->base, &status,
> sizeof(status));
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto err_get_hpd;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_unlock(&mhdp_mailbox_mutex);
> >
> > That's better I guess, but it's still not a good API design. If you
> > can't have concurrent accesses, then cdns_mhdp_mailbox_send et al.
> > should take the mutex themselves.
>
> I think that a proper API might be:
>
> int cdns_mhdp_mailbox_send_recv(struct cdns_mhdp_device *mhdp,
> u8 module_id, u8 opcode,
> u16 size, const u8 *message,
> u16 buf_size, u8 *buf);
>
> Internally it should take the lock, exchange the data, then return.
>
Thank you for your great suggestion. It seems like this should be able to solve the current problem.
I need to check each existing FW access functions one by one to see if they can all work under this API function.
B.R
Sandor
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
