On 1/19/22 9:30 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:22:30 -0600, Terry Bowman wrote:
>> This series uses request_mem_region() to synchronize accesses to the MMIO
>> registers mentioned above. request_mem_region() is missing the retry
>> logic in the case the resource is busy. As a result, request_mem_region()
>> will fail immediately if the resource is busy. The 'muxed' variant is
>> needed here but request_muxed_mem_region() is not defined to use. I will
>> follow up with another patch series to define the
>> request_muxed_mem_region() and use in both drivers.
>
> Shouldn't this be done the other way around, first introducing
> request_muxed_mem_region() and then using it directly in both drivers,
> rather than having a temporary situation where a failure can happen?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the patch series you just posted are
> acceptable only if request_muxed_mem_region() gets accepted too.
> Otherwise we end up with the situation where a driver could randomly
> fail.
>
Hi Jean,
I considered sending the request_muxed_mem_region() patch series first but
was concerned the patch might not be accepted without a need or usage. I
didn't see an obvious path forward for the order of submissions because of
the dependencies.
I need to make the review easy for you and the other maintainers. I can
send the request_muxed_mem_region() single patch series ASAP if you like.
Then I change the request_mem_region() -> request_muxed_mem_region() as
needed in the piix4_smbus v3 and sp5100_tco v4 and add dependency line as
well? Is their a risk the driver patches will take 2 merge windows before
added to the tree ? Is there anything I can do to avoid this?
Regards,
Terry
