Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-127179-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <fb0ddca3-3b74-8225-914e-d1799f6c3ca3@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:31:29 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] mailbox: omap: Reverse FIFO busy check logic
To: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        Nick
 Saulnier <nsaulnier@ti.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu
 Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
CC: <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240325172045.113047-1-afd@ti.com>
 <20240325172045.113047-13-afd@ti.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240325172045.113047-13-afd@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/25/24 12:20, Andrew Davis wrote:
>   
>   static int omap_mbox_chan_send_noirq(struct omap_mbox *mbox, u32 msg)
>   {
> -	int ret = -EBUSY;
> +	if (mbox_fifo_full(mbox))
> +		return -EBUSY;
>   
> -	if (!mbox_fifo_full(mbox)) {
> -		omap_mbox_enable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> -		mbox_fifo_write(mbox, msg);
> -		ret = 0;
> -		omap_mbox_disable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> +	omap_mbox_enable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> +	mbox_fifo_write(mbox, msg);
> +	omap_mbox_disable_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
>   
> -		/* we must read and ack the interrupt directly from here */
> -		mbox_fifo_read(mbox);
> -		ack_mbox_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> -	}
> +	/* we must read and ack the interrupt directly from here */
> +	mbox_fifo_read(mbox);
> +	ack_mbox_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
>   
> -	return ret;
> +	return 0;
>   }
Is n't the interrupt supposed to be IRQ_TX above? i.e TX ready signal?