On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 03:59:33PM -0500, Stephen Boyd wrote: > 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. Indeed it is. Good catch Andy!