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!
