[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Vc_wtLTxM8A9T-RZ8h5XpkSLLUVJzmCQSytXFwOPRkOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:09:52 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Raju P L S S S N <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 10/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: allow active requests
from wake TCS
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Raju P L S S S N
<rplsssn@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> @@ -148,7 +148,8 @@ int rpmh_rsc_invalidate(struct rsc_drv *drv)
> static struct tcs_group *get_tcs_for_msg(struct rsc_drv *drv,
> const struct tcs_request *msg)
> {
> - int type;
> + int type, ret;
> + struct tcs_group *tcs;
>
> switch (msg->state) {
> case RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE:
> @@ -164,7 +165,25 @@ static struct tcs_group *get_tcs_for_msg(struct rsc_drv *drv,
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> }
>
> - return get_tcs_of_type(drv, type);
> + /*
> + * If we are making an active request on a RSC that does not have a
> + * dedicated TCS for active state use, then re-purpose a wake TCS to
> + * send active votes.
> + * NOTE: The driver must be aware that this RSC does not have a
> + * dedicated AMC, and therefore would invalidate the sleep and wake
> + * TCSes before making an active state request.
> + */
> + tcs = get_tcs_of_type(drv, type);
> + if (msg->state == RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE && IS_ERR(tcs)) {
> + tcs = get_tcs_of_type(drv, WAKE_TCS);
> + if (!IS_ERR(tcs)) {
> + ret = rpmh_rsc_invalidate(drv);
> + if (ret)
> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
In v9 you looped as long as the "ret" was -EAGAIN. Now you're not.
Are all the callers setup to handle -EAGAIN or should you keep the
loop in for -EAGAIN? I don't think callers handle this well.
...or is there some reason that EAGAIN can't happen in this call to
rpmh_rsc_invalidate()?
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists