Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] soc: qcom: Introduce APCS IPC driver
From: Bjorn Andersson <hidden>
Date: 2017-05-10 19:00:54
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-remoteproc, lkml
On Tue 09 May 19:33 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Bjorn Andersson [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue 09 May 09:41 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote:
[..]
quoted
The part where this piece of hardware differs from the other mailboxes is that TX is done as send_data() returns and in the realm of the mailbox there is no such thing as "tx done". So how about we extend the framework to handle stateless and message-less doorbells?This is a very common usecase. It would be unfair to other platforms to modify the API just because you find it awkward to call mbox_client_txdone() right after mbox_send_message(). For example, drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c I'd much rather have mbox_send_message_and_tick() than implant a new api.
I wasn't proposing to implement a new API; for mailbox controllers with tx method set to POLL the client will only have call mbox_send_data() nothing else. So I proposed [1] yesterday, that will make the apcs controller behave just like this case. Looking at it again, making sure that tx method is TXDONE_BY_ACK should make mbox_client_txdone() essentially a nop, only locking the channel spinlock twice and then returning, as send_data() didn't leave any data in the queue. Is my understanding of this correct? So please let me know what you think about [1], if you don't like it I'll fix the things pointed to by Stephen and we'll have to live with the two calls. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9718931/ Regards, Bjorn