From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:8522 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753834Ab0DSTBw (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:01:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm: msm: smd: fix SMD modem processor sync condition From: Daniel Walker In-Reply-To: References: <1271700189-8376-5-git-send-email-dwalker@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:01:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1271703705.15004.4.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dima Zavin Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 11:34 -0700, Dima Zavin wrote: > Do we really need a formalized blocking point here? The apps processor > can do other useful initialization work while the modem is booting. > The first time you do a proc_comm call, it checks the PCOM_READY > state, and will block anyway. Preventing the apps processor from > continuing until then is suboptimal. If there are bugs in the modem > code where it incorrectly stomps on shared resources, then those > should be fixed. This patch looks like a hack to me. Yes, we need to formalize a blocking point .. The apps processor waits in this way no matter what you do .. Like your saying above "The first time you do a proc_comm call, it checks the PCOM_READY state, and will block anyway" that's a hack .. What your saying is _maybe_ there exists a proc_comm call early enough to prevent a crash, or maybe not .. That's not formal enough. This patch makes this a formal process with a comment explain what is happening, and we will never see a crash related to this again. Daniel