Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: bbhatt=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 10:49:51 -0700
From:   Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@codeaurora.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, hemantk@codeaurora.org,
        jhugo@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        loic.poulain@linaro.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        ath11k@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver
Organization: Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Reply-To: bbhatt@codeaurora.org
Mail-Reply-To: bbhatt@codeaurora.org
In-Reply-To: <87h7i0juxt.fsf@codeaurora.org>
References: <1620330705-40192-1-git-send-email-bbhatt@codeaurora.org>
 <1620330705-40192-5-git-send-email-bbhatt@codeaurora.org>
 <20210521135152.GL70095@thinkpad> <87h7i0juxt.fsf@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <37184e28dcc952ba9ad5ed0dc2c1a6da@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

Hi Kalle,

On 2021-06-14 09:02 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:51:43PM -0700, Bhaumik Bhatt wrote:
>>> MHI driver requires register space length to add range checks and
>>> prevent memory region accesses outside of that for MMIO space.
>>> Set it before registering the MHI controller.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@codeaurora.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Hemant Kumar <hemantk@codeaurora.org>
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
>> 
>> Kalle, should we do immutable branch for this patch or I can pick it 
>> up via MHI
>> tree (if there are no other patches expected from ath11k for this 
>> controller)?
> 
> I'm not expecting any conflicts with this, and if there are, they 
> should
> be easy for Stephen or Linus to fix. So it's easiest to route this via
> your tree. But I'm not giving my ack yet, see below.
> 
> I'm worried that this patchset breaks bisect. Every patch in the
> patchset should not break existing functionality, what if only patches
> 1-3 are included in the tree but not patch 4? Wouldn't ath11k be broken
> then? I didn't review the whole patchset, but I suspect the fix is to
> include the ath11k change in the actual mhi patch which changes the
> functionality. So that way we would not have a separate ath11k patch at
> all.
> 
> Also I'm not able to test this patchset at the moment. Can someone else
> help and do a quick test with QCA6390 to verify these doesn't break
> ath11k?

I have requested someone to try and test this patch series with QCA6390.

I or the testers will get back to you with the test results when they 
are
available.

As far as your concerns go, you can choose to pick patches 1-3 and that 
would
be just fine.

Things will break if patchset 4 is _not_ in place with patchset 6 being 
part of
the tree.

It would, however, be nice to pick the whole series instead and ensure 
that
the functionality MHI introduces for boot-up sanity is in place for any
controllers such as ath11k.

Thanks,
Bhaumik
---
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project