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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B159CC77B61 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:23:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233766AbjDYNXC (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:23:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50730 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234083AbjDYNWz (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:22:55 -0400 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD94D13C1C; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Q5Myp2Mbsz16PKW; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:18:58 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.103.231] (10.67.103.231) by kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:22:48 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:22:48 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mailbox: pcc: Support platform notification for type4 and shared interrupt To: Sudeep Holla , Robbie King CC: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rafael@kernel.org" , "rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com" , "wanghuiqiang@huawei.com" , "zhangzekun11@huawei.com" , "wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com" , "tanxiaofei@huawei.com" , "guohanjun@huawei.com" , "xiexiuqi@huawei.com" , "wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com" , "huangdaode@huawei.com" References: <20221016034043.52227-1-lihuisong@huawei.com> <20230314111135.16520-1-lihuisong@huawei.com> <20230327113326.dgrb5ainl6mv7wr5@bogus> <570a6f6d-87cb-48ca-3bbc-cd1221bfa88c@huawei.com> <7ef4eec4-2cfb-6f66-a9b9-9c130a1b71d8@huawei.com> <57c537d8-6728-2ffc-3421-accd79c1eddf@huawei.com> <3d8e8817-12b9-62bc-4c04-34d8822d366f@huawei.com> <20230421105510.hjmyt4l3rpx36mhl@bogus> From: "lihuisong (C)" In-Reply-To: <20230421105510.hjmyt4l3rpx36mhl@bogus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.103.231] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.242) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. >