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=-10.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 3018FC49EA5 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1310F613C2 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232300AbhFXUsU (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:48:20 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45920 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232284AbhFXUsU (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:48:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x632.google.com (mail-pl1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210DBC061574 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x632.google.com with SMTP id f10so3603738plg.0 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:46:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8+XcAHiGiXvmgy9Rd443ncnG3LuxD3RnQCz3eit3rcE=; b=kzkO/OSOSBd0BOcLDPQmtDXP4xhm0WZoeR9cPfBs7ky2gmVlYJXRQP3+BuYghI2ywG d16Igr/yrXEi4dyXfi8DaLhYu84Z+toA+NaMA4ttYUXUrOW/VdISLoW1Ek1CYmvRfGMY uUHnqA+X0AQdPq7EiwyPUh3DvfZNJXv7YhQiY5jdtS7mL5yI4cDwmUj0mDTOc9r616d9 L9xD035CELRCuEpeDSo1OPZxHHaj7769m95I4xt9WpUkoyCEdC1dXwNksKmH4a2fA47E 0Ahz7EVrorsFwa9zeDQIlINM2hFoQ9jx5PQS63LyQNNQyEqy3Sta5BRai7Kmlp3PMbPJ V8Kg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8+XcAHiGiXvmgy9Rd443ncnG3LuxD3RnQCz3eit3rcE=; b=s7uNTuEn1Q6rPsZGze22MY67CZ6TXQ7NbNkFaX9nrjfUIccIJv+FthQ/0WMz5qLAj9 DIfS1KGMlTWsq2PNv9Abi9I/vl8+2L8VpjilrvZTDlohm2q0H9aN12vopgSymc4PQ/Hl Qhz236EuuMheT+lBGH8CC0W3+bMy2HX5FznDspSu+NBtUgGvnYTSjaRkr007RTyN9TsI uez4NUET5UVtsiM+DnlfubcF5WEGxJt4uy7y20ySYywV8H+jY/8U21qkCYecvBKlLL1w JK6ajJ5vRdZupCJUyMA6RH2pRa5ZbQSCl2Gk9PDUp8OTF3S8bn6muKz9+TsJ2YfU1b0V BtzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qe6DEtcT13Dg/zAOcbizX+4d4NuZKSvTr1y3yL47AvSMlfM+6 l2XAkH0JHuk9fijGhRMfQVQ945RE56wiT8Lt9wgKow== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhA8+0CusWRxsItDMcswCN1kJRVZdjJcVUerlpBcARb8uS7wYoA7elTy97tq9u/Nootold3ivHSA9OWJUL2j4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:5106:: with SMTP id t6mr17416872pjh.231.1624567560528; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1624566520-20406-1-git-send-email-loic.poulain@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: From: Loic Poulain Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:45:25 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] bus: mhi: Add inbound buffers allocation flag To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam , linux-arm-msm , Manivannan Sadhasivam Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Hi Bjorn, On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:30, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Thu 24 Jun 15:28 CDT 2021, Loic Poulain wrote: > > > Currently, the MHI controller driver defines which channels should > > have their inbound buffers allocated and queued. But ideally, this is > > something that should be decided by the MHI device driver instead, > > which actually deals with that buffers. > > > > Add a flag parameter to mhi_prepare_for_transfer allowing to specify > > if buffers have to be allocated and queued by the MHI stack. > > > > Keep auto_queue flag for now, but should be removed at some point. > > > > Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain > > Tested-by: Bhaumik Bhatt > > Reviewed-by: Bhaumik Bhatt > > Reviewed-by: Hemant Kumar > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam > > Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1621603519-16773-1-git-send-email-loic.poulain@linaro.org > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam > > What's the intention with this patch? Why is Mani the last S-o-b when > you're the one sending it and why is it sent only to linux-arm-msm@? Actually the previous version of that patch has already been applied to mhi-next, but has been nacked as part of Mani's PR, so it's a quick follow-up fix to address the issue. > And completely separate of the practical matters, is it true that qrtr > is the only client that use this pre-allocation feature? yes. > Would it be a net gain to simplify the core and add buffer allocation to qrtr instead? Yes, I 100% agree, but I however would prefer to keep that for a follow-up series since this patch fixes a real issue for MHI/PCI modems (no inbound QRTR buffers allocated). Regards, Loic