Hi Bjorn, On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:30, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu 24 Jun 15:28 CDT 2021, Loic Poulain wrote: > > > Currently, the MHI controller driver defines which channels should > > have their inbound buffers allocated and queued. But ideally, this is > > something that should be decided by the MHI device driver instead, > > which actually deals with that buffers. > > > > Add a flag parameter to mhi_prepare_for_transfer allowing to specify > > if buffers have to be allocated and queued by the MHI stack. > > > > Keep auto_queue flag for now, but should be removed at some point. > > > > Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Hemant Kumar <hemantk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1621603519-16773-1-git-send-email-loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > What's the intention with this patch? Why is Mani the last S-o-b when > you're the one sending it and why is it sent only to linux-arm-msm@? Actually the previous version of that patch has already been applied to mhi-next, but has been nacked as part of Mani's PR, so it's a quick follow-up fix to address the issue. > And completely separate of the practical matters, is it true that qrtr > is the only client that use this pre-allocation feature? yes. > Would it be a net gain to simplify the core and add buffer allocation to qrtr instead? Yes, I 100% agree, but I however would prefer to keep that for a follow-up series since this patch fixes a real issue for MHI/PCI modems (no inbound QRTR buffers allocated). Regards, Loic
