From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4811E14AD17 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 13:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728306652; cv=none; b=eOOJxrjdHZr+81CF21wS9sdeZrqN8oPYBSfXPHOhhSao4Ey4tSgsw1HZi0YgxL896wm2naMFvEIdMQ+e8IsnSzYU7vSubxE72ocTcpD15MV8B1kxe0XXM5tnnTXb9I9VtNAFFdbDTSaQa59u+0GYE4Lnl5mcKMgmsBDjJh0DFE0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728306652; c=relaxed/simple; bh=w6i+swf0ptm0huYw19HGkFVn5jQu2pBo3oDKGZfBZes=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=h8tX39o66lADTXUmzTxhKGQjmORmmBTomiarCsYFpHRkIKRZGUamDAk88Wvw4GeBd9C9rfCXQAGMz+F1kisp4iRCrRb2OXm5NWw0hkbmyZQTk4RfZPPkwm3+TNQTkLRSWaD2BVVz3nShxRc4lHYymwfIUsz9Fzp/+llvOszKsQY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E512DA7; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 06:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pluto (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6496A3F640; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 06:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 14:10:45 +0100 From: Cristian Marussi To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Justin Chen , arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, cristian.marussi@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peng.fan@nxp.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, florian.fainelli@broadcom.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Queue in scmi layer for mailbox implementation Message-ID: References: <20241004221257.2888603-1-justin.chen@broadcom.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 02:04:10PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 03:12:57PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote: > > The mailbox layer has its own queue. However this confuses the per > > message timeouts since the clock starts ticking the moment the messages > > get queued up. So all messages in the queue have there timeout clocks > > ticking instead of only the message inflight. To fix this, lets move the > > queue back into the SCMI layer. > > > > I think this has come up in the past. We have avoided adding addition > locking here as the mailbox layer takes care of it. Has anything changed > recently ? I asked for an explanation in my reply (we crossed each other mails probably) since it alredy came up in the past a few times and central locking seemed not to be needed...here the difference is about the reason...Justin talks about message timeouts related to the queueing process..so I asked to better explain the detail (and the anbomaly observed) since it still does not seem to me that even in this case the lock is needed....anyway I can definitely be woring of course :D Thanks, Cristian