Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:41:11 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To:     Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     andy.gross@linaro.org, david.brown@linaro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        rnayak@codeaurora.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org,
        evgreen@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: write sleep/wake
 requests to TCS
Message-ID: <20180425214111.GC243180@google.com>
References: <20180419221635.17849-1-ilina@codeaurora.org>
 <20180419221635.17849-6-ilina@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180419221635.17849-6-ilina@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:16:30PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
> Sleep and wake requests are sent when the application processor
> subsystem of the SoC is entering deep sleep states like in suspend.
> These requests help lower the system power requirements when the
> resources are not in use.
> 
> Sleep and wake requests are written to the TCS slots but are not
> triggered at the time of writing. The TCS are triggered by the firmware
> after the last of the CPUs has executed its WFI. Since these requests
> may come in different batches of requests, it is the job of this
> controller driver to find and arrange the requests into the available
> TCSes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
> Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h |   8 +++
>  drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c      | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 128 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> index d9a21726e568..6e19fe458c31 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h

<snip>

> +static int find_match(const struct tcs_group *tcs, const struct tcs_cmd *cmd,
> +		      int len)
> +{
> +	int i, j;
> +
> +	/* Check for already cached commands */
> +	for_each_set_bit(i, tcs->slots, MAX_TCS_SLOTS) {
> +		for (j = 0; j < len; j++) {
> +			if (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr) {

Shouldn't the condition be 'tcs->cmd_cache[i + j] != cmd[j].addr'?

Otherwise the code below the following if branch will never be
executed. Either the 'tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr' branch isn't
entered because the addresses match, or the addresses don't match
and the inner loop is aborted after the first iteration.

> +				if (j == 0)
> +					break;
> +				WARN(tcs->cmd_cache[i + j] != cmd[j].addr,
> +				     "Message does not match previous sequence.\n");
> +				return -EINVAL;
> +			} else if (j == len - 1) {
> +				return i;
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return -ENODATA;
> +}