Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mailbox: pcc: Support platform notification for type4 and shared interrupt

From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Robbie King <robbiek@xsightlabs.com>
Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	"wanghuiqiang@huawei.com" <wanghuiqiang@huawei.com>,
	"zhangzekun11@huawei.com" <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>,
	"wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com" <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>,
	"tanxiaofei@huawei.com" <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>,
	"guohanjun@huawei.com" <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	"xiexiuqi@huawei.com" <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>,
	"wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com" <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
	"huangdaode@huawei.com" <huangdaode@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mailbox: pcc: Support platform notification for type4 and shared interrupt
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:22:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d4207f8b-a631-a2fc-5722-86a103ad2a8e@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230421105510.hjmyt4l3rpx36mhl@bogus>


在 2023/4/21 18:55, Sudeep Holla 写道:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:21:54AM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>> 在 2023/4/14 21:48, Robbie King 写道:
>>> Sorry for the delay.  I ran my simple stress test against the patch set and
>>> saw no issues.  For the record it is by no means a thorough regression, but it
>>> has illuminated issues in the past.
>> Thanks for your testing.
>>> The test itself uses a "heartbeat" module in the SCP firmware that generates
>>> notifications at a programmable interval.  The stress test is simply generating
>>> these heartbeats (SCP to AP notifications) while also generating protocol version
>>> queries (AP to SCP).  The notifications are sequence numbered to verify none are
>>> lost, however SCP to AP notification support does not support SCP generating
>>> notifications faster than the AP can process them, so the heartbeat rate must be
>>> reasonably slow (on the order of 10s of millliseconds).
>> I understand your concern. I think this doesn't get int the way of what we
>> are doing.
>>
>> My stress tests were also run in type3 and type4 concurrent scenarios.
>> There were two drivers using type3 to send command looply on platform.
>> In the firmware terminal window,
>> there were two channels for type4 to generate notifications from platform at
>> the 1ms(even shorter) interval.
>> I didn't find anything issues in this stress after running a couple of
>> hours.
>>
>> @Robbie King and @Sudeep, what do you think of my test?
>>
> IMO if there is a need to have this driver changes upstream, then it is good
> enough test as it is the best that can be done at this time. We can always fix
> the bugs or extend to new use-cases in the future.
>
> Since it is merge window next week, it is quite late now. But sometimes
> Rafael picks up additional patches late. So please post v3 even if there
> are no changes with my reviewed-by and Robbie's tested-by so that I can ask
> Rafael to pick it up.
Hi Robbie and Sudeep,

v3 has been sent.
Can you take a look at this series again?
Looking forward to your reply.
>