[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE-0n52VoAFopSgXiLMoSzBAdSLg4=x3i2R9Agjz5L7o8=1hew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 16:29:57 -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 v2 1/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after
timeout in busy_loop()
Quoting Mika Westerberg (2023-09-07 21:59:46)
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 01:11:17PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > We can't use readl_busy_timeout() (you mean readl_poll_timeout() right?)
> > because that implements the timeout with timekeeping and we don't know
> > if this is called from suspend paths after timekeeping is suspended or
> > from early boot paths where timekeeping isn't started.
>
> Yes readl_poll_timeout(). :)
>
> I don't think this code is used anymore outside of regular paths. It
> used to be with the Moorestown/Medfield board support code but that's
> gone already. Grepping for the users also don't reveal anything that
> could be using it early at boot.
Ok. Assuming this isn't used from paths during suspend/resume when
timekeeping is suspended it look like readl_poll_timeout() is the
shorter and simpler approach. So if that works for you I'll send another
round with that and a fix for the ipcdev being overwritten.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists