[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPjlIhDykHd44YTz@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 23:46:26 +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 3/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Fail IPC send if
still busy
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?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists