Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2023-09-06 13:46:26)
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 03:22:43PM -0500, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2023-09-06 13:13:27)
> > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:09:43AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > @@ -450,6 +468,12 @@ int intel_scu_ipc_dev_simple_command(struct intel_scu_ipc_dev *scu, int cmd,
> > > > return -ENODEV;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > > scu = ipcdev;
> > >
> > > Side observation: Isn't this a bug? We should not override the supplied parameter.
> >
> > If it is a bug that would be great to know. I wanted to make an API that
> > got the scu if it wasn't busy but then I ran across this code that
> > replaced the scu with ipcdev.
>
> To me this seems like a bug, because in other similar code we don't do that.
> And even reading this one, why do we have a parameter if it's always being
> rewritten?
Yes. From what I can tell looking at commit f57fa18583f5 ("platform/x86:
intel_scu_ipc: Introduce new SCU IPC API") it was an unintentional bug
to leave that line there.
