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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230515142552.1.I17cae37888be3a8683911991602f18e482e7a621@changeid>
 <ZGQ9Y+vqWhQLHAQh@google.com> <CAMaBtwHxaevxLY7zWNDU8zbyWx=puLkeeRAjFtovvrA5pjtJ4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZGWBhEMmo2lStTg9@google.com> <CAMaBtwFtE=vjuhVy7rw9zCe9WV0dRyeBWj88JH2j3bkbh2BkXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZGbXFtrBzbaD9rQs@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZGbXFtrBzbaD9rQs@google.com>
From:   Tim Van Patten <timvp@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2023 09:32:51 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMaBtwHwfZCCQ4J_kNjNQtPJ1b5uHQTRHtHaxS+8odBUjivFUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v9] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpc: Move host command to prepare/complete
To:     Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, robbarnes@google.com,
        lalithkraj@google.com, rrangel@chromium.org,
        Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, Garrick Evans <garrick@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 7:55=E2=80=AFPM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> =
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:47:23AM -0600, Tim Van Patten wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 7:38=E2=80=AFPM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.o=
rg> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:56:59AM -0600, Tim Van Patten wrote:
> > > > The issue is that we need the EC aware of the AP being in the proce=
ss
> > > > of suspend/resume from start to finish, so we can accurately
> > > > determine:
> > > > - How long the process took to better gauge we're meeting ChromeOS =
requirements.
> > > > - When the AP failed to complete the process, so we can collect dat=
a
> > > > and perform error recovery.
> [...]
> > > How could the *error* recovery do?
> >
> > I don't understand what this is asking.
>
> Given that you said "we can collect data and perform error recovery" if t=
he
> suspend-resume takes more/less time than expected.  I'm trying to underst=
and
> what does "error recovery" mean.  What recovery it could take?

Currently, for AMD, the EC will trigger data collection and either
reset the AP or send a host event to attempt to trigger the AP into
it's own recovery. Intel is looking into adding error recovery as
well.

> > > > > What about other interfaces (i2c, spi, uart)?  Do they also need =
to change
> > > > the callbacks?
> > > >
> > > > We aren't concerned about those devices, because they aren't being
> > > > used on the devices we're seeing issues with. If devices using thos=
e
> > > > ECs want this change, they can pick it up as well, but we don't hav=
e
> > > > any way to test changes on those devices (whatever they may be).
> > >
> > > This doesn't sound good.  As I would suppose you are adding some new =
EC FW
> > > features regarding to EC_CMD_HOST_SLEEP_EVENT, you should consider th=
e
> > > existing systems too.
> >
> > Again, why are you assuming there is new EC FW for this? This is only
> > changing when an already-existing host command is being sent. Nothing
> > is being added or removed.
>
> I see.  There is no EC changes.
>
> Specifically, do you see any crashes, or premature events, or mal-functio=
ns
> regarding to the measurement is not that accurate?

No, we don't see any issues with the current or new timings of sending
these commands.

> Also, we wouldn't want it to be LPC-specialized.  Please consider other
> interfaces.

I'm intentionally excluding those interfaces because we don't have any
way to test/validate this change on those devices. Additionally, we
don't have any devices that use this suspend/resume tracking logic
using those interfaces, so there's no reason to introduce any risk by
changing devices that don't need it.