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;
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 16:47:37 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rafael@kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
        wanghuiqiang@huawei.com, huangdaode@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: PCC: replace wait_for_completion()
Message-ID: <20220921154737.az3d4ndxs3u3zwbl@bogus>
References: <20220920094500.11283-1-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20220920094500.11283-2-lihuisong@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220920094500.11283-2-lihuisong@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 05:44:59PM +0800, Huisong Li wrote:
> Currently, the function waiting for completion of mailbox operation is
> 'wait_for_completion()'.  The PCC method will be permanently blocked if
> this mailbox message fails to execute. So this patch replaces it with
> 'wait_for_completion_timeout()'. And set the timeout interval to an
> arbitrary retries on top of nominal to prevent the remote processor is
> slow to respond to PCC commands.
>

Sounds good to me. The only concern(may be not serious) is what happens
if we receive response from the platform after the timeout. I have tested
for that in non ACPI non PCC context. I don't have a setup to trigger that
with ACPI PCC + this patch to test. Other than that, I am fine with this:

Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep