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:   Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:39:41 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
Cc:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cxl: Add a firmware update mechanism and cxl_test
 emulation
Message-ID: <y4cqp7r3tt74igqwtcbwshcca66krcjpiopo6frilx272x6ot7@ji2shc7sqk27>
References: <20230421-vv-fw_update-v1-0-22468747d72f@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230421-vv-fw_update-v1-0-22468747d72f@intel.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20230407
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023, Vishal Verma wrote:

>The poll interval for the Transfer FW command is arbitrarily set at 1
>second, and a poll count of 300, giving us a total wait time of five
>minutes before which each slice of the transfer times out. This seems
>like a good mix of responsiveness and a total wait - the spec doesn't
>have any guidance on any upper or lower bounds for this. This likely
>does not need to be user-configurable, so for now it is just hard-coded
>in the driver.

Nothing against this, just thinking that in general, but we should
probably limit the poll interval to CXL_MAILBOX_TIMEOUT_MS. I'm not
sure, however, what would be a proper value across all commands. Or
would having this limit be per-cmd make more sense instead?

Thanks,
Davidlohr