Re: [PATCH v3] mailbox: pcc: Support HW-Reduced Communication Subspace type 2

[Hoan Tran <hotran@apm.com>]

Hi Prashanth,


On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Prakash, Prashanth
<pprakash@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/8/2016 10:24 AM, Hoan Tran wrote:
>> Hi Ashwin,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Ashwin Chaugule
>> <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> + Prashanth (Can you please have a look as well?)
>>>
>>> On 31 May 2016 at 15:35, Hoan Tran <hotran@apm.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Ashwin,
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry about the delay. I'm in the middle of switching jobs and
>>> locations, so its been a bit crazy lately.
>> It's ok and hope you're doing well.
>>
>>> I dont have any major
>>> concerns with this code, although there could be subtle issues with
>>> this IRQ thing. In this patchset, your intent is to add support for
>>> PCC subspace type 2. But you're also adding support for tx command
>>> completion which is not specific to Type 2. We could support that even
>>> in Type 1. Hence I wanted to separate the two, not just for review,
>>> but also the async IRQ completion has subtle issues esp. in the case
>>> of async platform notification, where you could have a PCC client in
>>> the OS writing to the cmd bit and the platform sending an async
>>> notification by writing to some bits in the same 8byte address as the
>>> cmd bit. So we need some mutual exclusivity there, otherwise the OS
>>> and platform could step on each other. Perhaps Prashanth has better
>>> insight into this.
>> I think, this mutual exclusivity could be in another patch.
> Ashwin,
> Sorry, I am not sure how we can prevent platform and OSPM from stepping on
> each other.  There is a line is spec that says "all operations on status field
> must be made using interlocked operations", but not sure what these
> interlocked operation translates to.

Yes, I had the same question about how to prevent it.

>
> Hoan,
> Even if we are not using platform notification, we still need to clear the doorbell
> interrupt bit in the PCC interrupt handler (Section14.2.2 and 14.4).  I didn't see
> clearing the doorbell interrupt bit in this patch (and platform is supposed to set
> it again when it is sending the interrupt again). Did I miss it? or is it intentionally
> left out to avoid the race that Ashwin mentioned above?
>

The PCC client driver is supposed to do that. Which mean, the
mbox_chan_received_data() function should clear it.

Thanks
Hoan

>
> Thanks,
> Prashanth
>
>