From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thierry.reding@gmail.com (Thierry Reding) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:56:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 01/10] mailbox: Support blocking transfers in atomic context In-Reply-To: <20181123111700.GA31881@ulmo> References: <20181112151853.29289-1-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <20181112151853.29289-2-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <20181120152907.GA28796@ulmo> <20181121142740.GA29704@ulmo> <20181122084712.GA5741@ulmo> <20181123111700.GA31881@ulmo> Message-ID: <20181123115617.GB31881@ulmo> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:17:00PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:47:12AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > [...] > > Perhaps you'd be less concerned about such a change if it was perhaps > > more explicit? Just throwing ideas around, I think something that could > > also work is if we explicitly add a mbox_flush() function that would > > basically be calling ->flush(). That way users of the mailbox can make > > their requirement very explicit. I haven't actually tested that, but I > > think it would work. Does that sound more acceptable to you? > > I tried implementing the explicit flushing on top of this series and it > would look roughly like the below. What do you think? > > Thierry > > --->8--- > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c [...] > @@ -184,9 +185,6 @@ static int tegra_tcu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return -ENOMEM; > > tcu->tx_client.dev = &pdev->dev; > - tcu->tx_client.tx_block = true; > - tcu->tx_client.tx_tout = 10000; > - tcu->rx_client.dev = &pdev->dev; Somehow this line ended up being removed in the diff, but it's actually required. Only tx_block and tx_tout should be removed in this hunk. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: