From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/platform/intel/iosf_mbi: Add a mutex for punit access Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:51:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20170113105127.GH31595@intel.com> References: <20170101201403.12132-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20170101201403.12132-2-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20170102141242.GY31595@intel.com> <2ecf7b65-98aa-696b-f399-1f2d15d0ea65@redhat.com> <20170113092644.GD31595@intel.com> <3e46500b-8e22-6aa1-8142-97bcbd5d5571@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:22981 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751581AbdAMKvc (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:51:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3e46500b-8e22-6aa1-8142-97bcbd5d5571@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Jarkko Nikula Cc: Hans de Goede , Len Brown , Jani Nikula , "russianneuromancer @ ya . ru" , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 01/13/2017 11:26 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > It also feels quite hand wavy since the punit could do whatever at > > any time AFAIK. Eg. if there's some thermal event or something the > > punit might kick into action. So trying to protect this from the OS > > side might not be able to avoid these problems entirely. It feels like > > there really should be some kind of shared hardware/firmware mutex > > with the punit to arbitrate access to the i2c bus. > > > There is an HW semaphore for I2C access. It is implemented in > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-baytrail.c and another set from Hans > is adding support for Cherrytrail into it. Then why do we need anything else? -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC