patches.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	 Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
	 platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
	 Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	 Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Fail IPC send if still busy
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 17:42:26 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE-0n508ae9ygTNU+HVk08L2zPy85izLLsyNS-DS7d-LPrffNA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230901060633.GV3465@black.fi.intel.com>

Quoting Mika Westerberg (2023-08-31 23:06:33)
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 05:07:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 06:14:03PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > It's possible for interrupts to get significantly delayed to the point
> > > that callers of intel_scu_ipc_dev_command() and friends can call the
> > > function once, hit a timeout, and call it again while the interrupt
> > > still hasn't been processed. This driver will get seriously confused if
> > > the interrupt is finally processed after the second IPC has been sent
> > > with ipc_command(). It won't know which IPC has been completed. This
> > > could be quite disastrous if calling code assumes something has happened
> > > upon return from intel_scu_ipc_dev_simple_command() when it actually
> > > hasn't.
> > >
> > > Let's avoid this scenario by simply returning -EBUSY in this case.
> > > Hopefully higher layers will know to back off or fail gracefully when
> > > this happens. It's all highly unlikely anyway, but it's better to be
> > > correct here as we have no way to know which IPC the status register is
> > > telling us about if we send a second IPC while the previous IPC is still
> > > processing.
> >
> > > +static bool intel_scu_ipc_busy(struct intel_scu_ipc_dev *scu)
> >
> > static int ?
> >
> > > +{
> > > +   u8 status;
> > > +
> > > +   status = ipc_read_status(scu);
> > > +   if (status & IPC_STATUS_BUSY) {
> >
> > > +           dev_err(&scu->dev, "device is busy\n");
> >
> > 1. Wouldn't it exaggerate the logs? Shouldn't be rate limited?
> > 2. OTOH if we return -EBUSY directly from here, do we need this at all?
>
> Agree w/ returning -EBUSY here and dropping the dev_err() (or using
> dev_dbg()).

Ok. I'll change to dev_dbg(). I assume that this should never happen,
but you never know if some calling code will ignore the return -EBUSY
from the previous round and call again while the previous IPC is
processing.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-05 22:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-31  1:14 [PATCH 0/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Timeout fixes Stephen Boyd
2023-08-31  1:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status after timeouts in busy_loop() Stephen Boyd
2023-08-31 13:53   ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-05 22:24     ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 13:58       ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-08-31 14:15   ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2023-09-01  5:50   ` Mika Westerberg
2023-09-05 22:27     ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-06 13:46       ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-06 14:31         ` Mika Westerberg
2023-08-31  1:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Check status upon timeout in ipc_wait_for_interrupt() Stephen Boyd
2023-08-31 13:58   ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-05 22:36     ` Stephen Boyd
2023-08-31 14:27   ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2023-09-05 22:56     ` Stephen Boyd
2023-09-01  6:04   ` Mika Westerberg
2023-08-31  1:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Fail IPC send if still busy Stephen Boyd
2023-08-31 14:07   ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-01  6:06     ` Mika Westerberg
2023-09-05 22:42       ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2023-08-31  3:28 ` [PATCH 0/3] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Timeout fixes Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2023-09-05 22:55   ` Stephen Boyd

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAE-0n508ae9ygTNU+HVk08L2zPy85izLLsyNS-DS7d-LPrffNA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=swboyd@chromium.org \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=markgross@kernel.org \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmalani@chromium.org \
    --cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).