lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/5] soc: qcom: Introduce APCS IPC driver
On Tue 09 May 19:33 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote:

> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Bjorn Andersson
> <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue 09 May 09:41 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote:
[..]
> > 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-10 21:22    [W:0.058 / U:1.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site