Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 15E67C433F2
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] bus: mhi: core: Handle syserr during power_up
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Cc:     Bhaumik Vasav Bhatt <bbhatt@codeaurora.org>,
        Hemant Kumar <hemantk@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1586278230-29565-1-git-send-email-jhugo@codeaurora.org>
 <1586278230-29565-2-git-send-email-jhugo@codeaurora.org>
 <1768ba6e-12c2-7b4f-0f17-44fecc6473b9@codeaurora.org>
 <11d9f35b-b911-7985-8846-0a45904ceed1@codeaurora.org>
 <5c4efe13-42a4-e802-4070-5d9d30b8cac2@codeaurora.org>
 <79feeb0b-0837-c5b6-087d-856c3e238c67@codeaurora.org>
 <20200413133447.GA19124@Mani-XPS-13-9360>
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <ee51ae8f-5826-5402-9178-3f2fba1358f8@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 08:01:36 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200413133447.GA19124@Mani-XPS-13-9360>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 4/13/2020 7:34 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 03:39:57PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>> On 4/10/2020 2:37 PM, Bhaumik Vasav Bhatt wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> We will always have the mhi_intvec_handler registered and trigger your
>>> wake_up state event when you write MHI RESET. BHI INTVEC IRQ using
>>> mhi_cntrl->irq[0] is _not_ unregistered once you enter AMSS EE.
>>
>> I understand it is not unregistered.  However mhi_cntrl->irq[0] may be
>> reserved for BHI, and thus only exercised by PBL EE.  Where as,
>> mhi_cntrl->irq[1..N] may be only exercised by AMSS EE. mhi_intvec_handler is
>> not called in response to mhi_cntrl->irq[1..N].
>>
>> Additionally, I re-reviewed the MHI spec, and I don't see where the spec
>> requires the device to issue an interrupt upon completion of the RESET
>> request.
>>
>> Under section 3.5, step 11 states -
>>
>> "The host must poll for the value of the RESET bit to detect the completion
>> of the reset procedure by the device (RESET is set to 0)."
>>
> 
> If this is the scenario then we need to change all of the wait_event_timeout()
> implementation for MHI RESET in current stack to polling.
> 
> Or the interrupt generation is not defined in spec (sheet) but part of the
> existing implementation?

It probably could be considered part of the existing implementation, but 
I'd like to hear from Hemant/Bhaumik.  Wherever we end up, I'd like to 
have the spec match.

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.