[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fb0ddca3-3b74-8225-914e-d1799f6c3ca3@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:31:29 -0500
From: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>
To: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Nick
Saulnier <nsaulnier@...com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Mathieu
Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] mailbox: omap: Reverse FIFO busy check logic
On 3/25/24 12:20, Andrew Davis wrote:
>
> static int omap_mbox_chan_send_noirq(struct omap_mbox *mbox, u32 msg)
> {
> - int ret = -EBUSY;
> + if (mbox_fifo_full(mbox))
> + return -EBUSY;
>
> - if (!mbox_fifo_full(mbox)) {
> - omap_mbox_enable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> - mbox_fifo_write(mbox, msg);
> - ret = 0;
> - omap_mbox_disable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> + omap_mbox_enable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> + mbox_fifo_write(mbox, msg);
> + omap_mbox_disable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
>
> - /* we must read and ack the interrupt directly from here */
> - mbox_fifo_read(mbox);
> - ack_mbox_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> - }
> + /* we must read and ack the interrupt directly from here */
> + mbox_fifo_read(mbox);
> + ack_mbox_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
>
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
Is n't the interrupt supposed to be IRQ_TX above? i.e TX ready signal?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists