Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
To:     Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@gmail.com>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/15] rpmsg: smd: Drop unnecessary condition for channel creation
Date:   Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:17:22 +0100
Message-ID: <2615776.mvXUDI8C0e@g550jk>
In-Reply-To: <Yfhjil3pfZLa5g3j@builder.lan>
References: <20220112194118.178026-1-luca@z3ntu.xyz> <YeRILypv8ajssNae@gerhold.net> <Yfhjil3pfZLa5g3j@builder.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Bjorn,

On Montag, 31. J=E4nner 2022 23:32:42 CET Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sun 16 Jan 10:30 CST 2022, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 05:08:29PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > On Mittwoch, 12. J=E4nner 2022 22:39:53 CET Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 08:40:58PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > > > From: Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@gmail.com>
> > > > >=20
> > > > > RPM Firmware on variety of newer SoCs such as MSM8917 (also likely
> > > > > MSM8937, MSM8940, MSM8952), MSM8953 and on some MSM8916 devices)
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > initiate opening of the SMD channel if it was previously opened by
> > > > > bootloader. This doesn't allow probing of smd-rpm driver on such
> > > > > devices
> > > > > because there is a check that requires RPM this behaviour.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@gmail.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
> > > >=20
> > > > This is effectively a "Revert "Revert "rpmsg: smd: Create device for
> > > > all
> > > > channels""":
> > > >=20
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20171212235857.10432-3-bjorn.=
and
> > > > ersson @linaro.org/
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20180315181244.8859-1-bjorn.a=
nde
> > > > rsson
> > > > @linaro.org/
> > > >=20
> > > > Won't this cause the same regression reported by Srinivas again?
> > >=20
> > > Do you have any suggestion on another way to solve this? Without this
> > > commit the regulators just won't probe at all, I haven't looked very
> > > deep into it though given this patch solves it.
> > >=20
> > > I guess worst case it'll become a devicetree property to enable this
> > > quirk?
> >=20
> > My spontaneous suggestion would be to skip the check only for the
> > "rpm_requests" channel, e.g. something like
> >=20
> > 	if (remote_state !=3D SMD_CHANNEL_OPENING &&
> > =09
> > 	    remote_state !=3D SMD_CHANNEL_OPENED &&
> > 	    strcmp(channel->name, "rpm_requests")
> > 	=09
> > 		continue;
> >=20
> > This will avoid changing the behavior for anything but the RPM channel.
> > I don't think anything else is affected by the same problem (since the
> > bootloader or earlier firmware should not make use of any other channel=
).
> > Also, we definitely *always* want to open the channel to the RPM because
> > otherwise almost everything breaks.
>=20
> Last time this came up I asked if someone could test if the RPM is stuck
> in the state machine trying to close the channel and as such we could
> kick it by making sure that we "ack" the closing of the channel and
> hence it would come back up again.
>=20
> But I don't remember seeing any outcome of this.

Do you have a link to this or should I go digging in the archives?

Regards
Luca

>=20
> > Many solutions are possible though so at the end it is mostly up to
> > Bjorn to decide I think. :)
>=20
> I would prefer to get an answer to above question, but if that doesn't
> work (or look like crap) I'm willing to take your suggestion of skipping
> the continue for the rpm_requests channel. Obviously with a comment
> above describing why we're carrying that special case.
>=20
> Regards,
> Bjorn