From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FCEC433E4 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22316206F0 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="uy10Uv7G" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726083AbgGXUY0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:24:26 -0400 Received: from mail29.static.mailgun.info ([104.130.122.29]:13491 "EHLO mail29.static.mailgun.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726493AbgGXUY0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:24:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1595622266; h=In-Reply-To: Content-Type: MIME-Version: References: Message-ID: Subject: Cc: To: From: Date: Sender; bh=F8/f//Q8SasxWgFDNAajtQ3g4nbJXEB+ZHsieUxxAJU=; b=uy10Uv7GjoO/7yS1eWFpJLDRTdpaSOQP4JW+y1vLhoH9Lt5TJwD0ItyXgmBrz0vRzZFfDkaV 3SeTuGMEwPlDsxkXNyp28I7XRoYb3Z8bPosm0oINbwqp1tkzDPr8EfXmjDZTrV2LUKzVRfGd +4laMurnkLgEU0m+bwumeNl3sfo= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 104.130.122.29 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI1MzIzYiIsICJsaW51eC1hcm0tbXNtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZyIsICJiZTllNGEiXQ== Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n05.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 5f1b435aca57a65d47a6fbee (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:23:54 GMT Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id ED705C433C6; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:23:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ilina) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD03EC433C9; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:23:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org CD03EC433C9 Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ilina@codeaurora.org Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:23:51 -0600 From: Lina Iyer To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Doug Anderson , Andy Gross , Bjorn Andersson , LKML , linux-arm-msm , Maulik Shah Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Sleep waiting for tcs slots to be free Message-ID: <20200724202351.GK9185@codeaurora.org> References: <20200723010137.3127584-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <159561988523.3847286.14763422711224252201@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <159562087212.3847286.9484527206999948907@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20200724200841.GJ9185@codeaurora.org> <159562149056.3847286.11191144133990578500@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <159562149056.3847286.11191144133990578500@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 24 2020 at 14:11 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote: >Quoting Lina Iyer (2020-07-24 13:08:41) >> On Fri, Jul 24 2020 at 14:01 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-07-24 12:49:56) >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:44 PM Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >I think Lina was alluding to this earlier in this >> >thread. >> I was thinking more of threaded irq handler than a kthread to post the >> requests. We went away from post-thread approach a few years ago. >> > >Ok, got it. Why was the kthread approach abandoned? Simplification mostly, I think. Also, somebody requested that when the async call returns they would atleast be guaranteed that the request has been posted not necessarily processed at the remote end.