[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE-0n50XCw7ugkoTAUfb5Jrr6-Vh=bvXfTOSeHV_ymyOQfRB2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 17:27:23 -0500
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after
timeouts in busy_loop()
Quoting Mika Westerberg (2023-08-31 22:50:11)
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 06:14:01PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > It's possible for the polling loop in busy_loop() to get scheduled away
> > for a long time.
> >
> > status = ipc_read_status(scu);
> > <long time scheduled away>
> > if (!(status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY))
>
> How can the status bit change here as we are the only user and the SCU
> access is serialized by ipclock?
I don't know how the SCU works. I thought that IPC_STATUS_BUSY bit was
cleared by the SCU when it was done processing. With that assumption, I
tried to show that the status is read and then the process schedules
away for a long time and has an outdated view of the busy bit.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists