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;
Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 00:16:23 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jonas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dre=DFler?= <verdre@v0yd.nl>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@gmail.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@gmail.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@gmail.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Tsuchiya Yuto <kitakar@gmail.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= <pali@kernel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mwifiex: Try waking the firmware until we get an
 interrupt
Message-ID: <YVYpJ4Thd0VHTDLT@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20210914114813.15404-1-verdre@v0yd.nl>
 <20210914114813.15404-3-verdre@v0yd.nl>
 <YUsRT1rmtITJiJRh@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <d9b1c8ea-99e2-7c3e-ec8e-61362e8ccfa7@v0yd.nl>
 <YVYk/1+ftFUOoitF@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <98c1b772-ae6b-e435-030e-399f613061ba@v0yd.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <98c1b772-ae6b-e435-030e-399f613061ba@v0yd.nl>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:07:09PM +0200, Jonas Dre?ler wrote:
> On 9/30/21 10:58 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 08:04:00PM +0200, Jonas Dre?ler wrote:

...

> > Second, what is the problem with having one write more or less?
> > Your current code doesn't guarantee this either. It only decreases
> > probability of such scenario. Am I wrong?
> 
> Indeed my approach just decreases the probability and we sometimes end up
> writing twice to wakeup the card, but it would kinda bug me if we'd always
> do one write too much.
> 
> Anyway, if you still prefer the read_poll_timeout() solution I'd be alright
> with that of course.

Yes, it will make code cleaner.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko