On 12/16/2021 3:55 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...
>
>> + switch (reason) {
>> + case EXCEPTION_HS_TIMEOUT:
>> + dev_err(dev, "BOOT_HS_FAIL\n");
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case EXCEPTION_EVENT:
>> + t7xx_fsm_broadcast_state(ctl, MD_STATE_EXCEPTION);
>> + t7xx_md_exception_handshake(ctl->md);
>> +
>> + cnt = 0;
>> + while (cnt < FSM_MD_EX_REC_OK_TIMEOUT_MS / FSM_EVENT_POLL_INTERVAL_MS) {
>> + if (kthread_should_stop())
>> + return;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ctl->event_lock, flags);
>> + event = list_first_entry_or_null(&ctl->event_queue,
>> + struct t7xx_fsm_event, entry);
>> + if (event) {
>> + if (event->event_id == FSM_EVENT_MD_EX) {
>> + fsm_del_kf_event(event);
>> + } else if (event->event_id == FSM_EVENT_MD_EX_REC_OK) {
>> + rec_ok = true;
>> + fsm_del_kf_event(event);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctl->event_lock, flags);
>> + if (rec_ok)
>> + break;
>> +
>> + cnt++;
>> + /* Try again after 20ms */
>> + msleep(FSM_EVENT_POLL_INTERVAL_MS);
>> + }
>> +
>> + cnt = 0;
>> + while (cnt < FSM_MD_EX_PASS_TIMEOUT_MS / FSM_EVENT_POLL_INTERVAL_MS) {
>> + if (kthread_should_stop())
>> + return;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ctl->event_lock, flags);
>> + event = list_first_entry_or_null(&ctl->event_queue,
>> + struct t7xx_fsm_event, entry);
>> + if (event && event->event_id == FSM_EVENT_MD_EX_PASS) {
>> + pass = true;
>> + fsm_del_kf_event(event);
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctl->event_lock, flags);
>> +
>> + if (pass)
>> + break;
>> + cnt++;
>> + /* Try again after 20ms */
>> + msleep(FSM_EVENT_POLL_INTERVAL_MS);
>> + }
> It hurts me a bit to see so much code duplication with only that one
> extra if branch + if condition right-hand sides being different. It would
> seem like something that could be solved with a helper taking those two
> things as parameters.
>
> I hope the ordering of FSM_EVENT_MD_EX, FSM_EVENT_MD_EX_REC_OK, and
> FSM_EVENT_MD_EX_PASS is guaranteed by something. Otherwise, the event
> being waited for might not become the first entry in the event_queue and
> the loop just keeps waiting until timeout?
>
Ordering is guaranteed by the modem. Removing code duplication in the
next iteration.
>> +void t7xx_fsm_clr_event(struct t7xx_fsm_ctl *ctl, enum t7xx_fsm_event_state event_id)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = &ctl->md->t7xx_dev->pdev->dev;
>> + struct t7xx_fsm_event *event, *evt_next;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ctl->event_lock, flags);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(event, evt_next, &ctl->event_queue, entry) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Unhandled event %d\n", event->event_id);
>> +
>> + if (event->event_id == event_id)
>> + fsm_del_kf_event(event);
>> + }
> It seems that only events matching to event_id are removed from the
> event_queue. Can that dev_err print the same event over and over again
> (I'm assuming here multiple calls to t7xx_fsm_clr_event can occur) because
> the other events still remaining in event_queue?
>
The purpose of this function is just to remove an event if present, it
is not relevant if there
were other events in the list, so I'll remove the dev_err.