[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPjbyckhj63Gw+SB@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 23:06:33 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
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,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status upon
timeout in ipc_wait_for_interrupt()
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:09:42AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> It's possible for the completion in ipc_wait_for_interrupt() to timeout,
> simply because the interrupt was delayed in being processed. A timeout
> in itself is not an error. This driver should check the status register
> upon a timeout to ensure that scheduling or interrupt processing delays
> don't affect the outcome of the IPC return value.
>
> CPU0 SCU
> ---- ---
> ipc_wait_for_interrupt()
> wait_for_completion_timeout(&scu->cmd_complete)
> [TIMEOUT] status[IPC_STATUS_BUSY]=0
>
> Fix this problem by reading the status bit in all cases, regardless of
> the timeout. If the completion times out, we'll assume the problem was
> that the IPC_STATUS_BUSY bit was still set, but if the status bit is
> cleared in the meantime we know that we hit some scheduling delay and we
> should just check the error bit.
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists