On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 12:06 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote: > 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. If you don't make a proc_call call SMD won't initialize properly early on, since the modem may or may not be booted far enough to accept input over SMD.. Then you can basically have a failed SMD init, which means you crash when you actually need stuff through SMD. 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
