Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-127202-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <c297dd68-f331-4c7f-a740-8fe722b347b0@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:47:05 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] mailbox: omap: Reverse FIFO busy check logic
To: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@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>
 <fb0ddca3-3b74-8225-914e-d1799f6c3ca3@ti.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <fb0ddca3-3b74-8225-914e-d1799f6c3ca3@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 4/1/24 6:31 PM, Hari Nagalla wrote:
> 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?

Hmm, could be, but this patch doesn't actually change anything, only moves code
around for readability. So if we were are ack'ing the wrong interrupt, then it
was wrong before. We should check that and fix it if needed in a follow up patch.

Andrew