On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 11:34 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote: >> Do we really need a formalized blocking point here? The apps processor >> can do other useful initialization work while the modem is booting. >> The first time you do a proc_comm call, it checks the PCOM_READY >> state, and will block anyway. Preventing the apps processor from >> continuing until then is suboptimal. If there are bugs in the modem >> code where it incorrectly stomps on shared resources, then those >> should be fixed. This patch looks like a hack to me. > > > Yes, we need to formalize a blocking point .. The apps processor waits > in this way no matter what you do .. Like your saying above "The first > time you do a proc_comm call, it checks the PCOM_READY state, and will > block anyway" that's a hack .. What your saying is _maybe_ there exists > a proc_comm call early enough to prevent a crash, or maybe not .. That's > not formal enough. That's not at all what I am saying. There's no maybe. If I don't need anything from the modem, I won't make a proc_comm call. If there is a crash because the modem is modifying shared resources that affect the apps processor without an appropriate synchronization point, then it's a bug on the modem side. Making this change will only mask modem bugs. --Dima > This patch makes this a formal process with a comment explain what is > happening, and we will never see a crash related to this again. > > Daniel > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
