Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 08:01:45 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Fail IPC send if
 still busy
Message-ID: <20230912050145.GC1599918@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230911193937.302552-1-swboyd@chromium.org>
 <20230911193937.302552-5-swboyd@chromium.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230911193937.302552-5-swboyd@chromium.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 12:39:36PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> It's possible for interrupts to get significantly delayed to the point
> that callers of intel_scu_ipc_dev_command() and friends can call the
> function once, hit a timeout, and call it again while the interrupt
> still hasn't been processed. This driver will get seriously confused if
> the interrupt is finally processed after the second IPC has been sent
> with ipc_command(). It won't know which IPC has been completed. This
> could be quite disastrous if calling code assumes something has happened
> upon return from intel_scu_ipc_dev_simple_command() when it actually
> hasn't.
> 
> Let's avoid this scenario by simply returning -EBUSY in this case.
> Hopefully higher layers will know to back off or fail gracefully when
> this happens. It's all highly unlikely anyway, but it's better to be
> correct here as we have no way to know which IPC the status register is
> telling us about if we send a second IPC while the previous IPC is still
> processing.
> 
> Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
> Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>