Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver

From: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@codeaurora.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, hemantk@codeaurora.org,
	jhugo@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	loic.poulain@linaro.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	ath11k@lists.infradead.org, bbhatt=codeaurora.org@codeaurora.org,
	lilic@codeaurora.org, kangxu@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:38:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6ed9fe90f40e5f8151d3a028abf0acd1@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37184e28dcc952ba9ad5ed0dc2c1a6da@codeaurora.org>

Hi Kalle/Mani,

On 2021-06-14 10:49 AM, Bhaumik Bhatt wrote:
> Hi Kalle,
> 
> On 2021-06-14 09:02 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:51:43PM -0700, Bhaumik Bhatt wrote:
>>>> MHI driver requires register space length to add range checks and
>>>> prevent memory region accesses outside of that for MMIO space.
>>>> Set it before registering the MHI controller.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@codeaurora.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Hemant Kumar <hemantk@codeaurora.org>
>>> 
>>> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
>>> 
>>> Kalle, should we do immutable branch for this patch or I can pick it 
>>> up via MHI
>>> tree (if there are no other patches expected from ath11k for this 
>>> controller)?
>> 
>> I'm not expecting any conflicts with this, and if there are, they 
>> should
>> be easy for Stephen or Linus to fix. So it's easiest to route this via
>> your tree. But I'm not giving my ack yet, see below.
>> 
>> I'm worried that this patchset breaks bisect. Every patch in the
>> patchset should not break existing functionality, what if only patches
>> 1-3 are included in the tree but not patch 4? Wouldn't ath11k be 
>> broken
>> then? I didn't review the whole patchset, but I suspect the fix is to
>> include the ath11k change in the actual mhi patch which changes the
>> functionality. So that way we would not have a separate ath11k patch 
>> at
>> all.
>> 
>> Also I'm not able to test this patchset at the moment. Can someone 
>> else
>> help and do a quick test with QCA6390 to verify these doesn't break
>> ath11k?
> 
> I have requested someone to try and test this patch series with 
> QCA6390.
> 
> I or the testers will get back to you with the test results when they 
> are
> available.
> 
> As far as your concerns go, you can choose to pick patches 1-3 and that 
> would
> be just fine.
> 
> Things will break if patchset 4 is _not_ in place with patchset 6 being 
> part of
> the tree.
> 
> It would, however, be nice to pick the whole series instead and ensure 
> that
> the functionality MHI introduces for boot-up sanity is in place for any
> controllers such as ath11k.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bhaumik
> ---
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
> Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Just got confirmation that the whole patch series was tested for 
functional sanity on
Dell E7590 + QCA6390 with Ubuntu18.04 and patch 4/6 is also good to go.

Can you please ACK and pick up this series?

Thanks,
Bhaumik
---
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project