On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:21:54AM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote: > > 在 2023/4/14 21:48, Robbie King 写道: > > Sorry for the delay. I ran my simple stress test against the patch set and > > saw no issues. For the record it is by no means a thorough regression, but it > > has illuminated issues in the past. > Thanks for your testing. > > > > The test itself uses a "heartbeat" module in the SCP firmware that generates > > notifications at a programmable interval. The stress test is simply generating > > these heartbeats (SCP to AP notifications) while also generating protocol version > > queries (AP to SCP). The notifications are sequence numbered to verify none are > > lost, however SCP to AP notification support does not support SCP generating > > notifications faster than the AP can process them, so the heartbeat rate must be > > reasonably slow (on the order of 10s of millliseconds). > I understand your concern. I think this doesn't get int the way of what we > are doing. > > My stress tests were also run in type3 and type4 concurrent scenarios. > There were two drivers using type3 to send command looply on platform. > In the firmware terminal window, > there were two channels for type4 to generate notifications from platform at > the 1ms(even shorter) interval. > I didn't find anything issues in this stress after running a couple of > hours. > > @Robbie King and @Sudeep, what do you think of my test? > IMO if there is a need to have this driver changes upstream, then it is good enough test as it is the best that can be done at this time. We can always fix the bugs or extend to new use-cases in the future. Since it is merge window next week, it is quite late now. But sometimes Rafael picks up additional patches late. So please post v3 even if there are no changes with my reviewed-by and Robbie's tested-by so that I can ask Rafael to pick it up. -- Regards, Sudeep
