[PATCH v2 3/3] soc: qcom: pmic_glink: Actually communicate with remote goes down

Bjorn Andersson posted 3 patches 1 year, 5 months ago
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] soc: qcom: pmic_glink: Actually communicate with remote goes down
Posted by Johan Hovold 1 year, 5 months ago
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 01:07:47PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> When the pmic_glink state is UP and we either receive a protection-
> domain (PD) notification indicating that the PD is going down, or that
> the whole remoteproc is going down, it's expected that the pmic_glink
> client instances are notified that their function has gone DOWN.
> 
> This is not what the code does, which results in the client state either
> not updating, or being wrong in many cases. So let's fix the conditions.

> @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ static void pmic_glink_state_notify_clients(struct pmic_glink *pg)
>  		if (pg->pdr_state == SERVREG_SERVICE_STATE_UP && pg->ept)
>  			new_state = SERVREG_SERVICE_STATE_UP;
>  	} else {
> -		if (pg->pdr_state == SERVREG_SERVICE_STATE_UP && pg->ept)
> +		if (pg->pdr_state == SERVREG_SERVICE_STATE_DOWN || !pg->ept)
>  			new_state = SERVREG_SERVICE_STATE_DOWN;
>  	}

I guess you could drop the outer conditional

	if (pg->client_state != SERVREG_SERVICE_STATE_UP) {

	} else {

	}

here to make this a bit more readable, but that's for a separate patch.

Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>

Johan
Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] soc: qcom: pmic_glink: Actually communicate with remote goes down
Posted by Johan Hovold 1 year, 5 months ago
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 09:07:10AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 01:07:47PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > When the pmic_glink state is UP and we either receive a protection-
> > domain (PD) notification indicating that the PD is going down, or that
> > the whole remoteproc is going down, it's expected that the pmic_glink
> > client instances are notified that their function has gone DOWN.
> > 
> > This is not what the code does, which results in the client state either
> > not updating, or being wrong in many cases. So let's fix the conditions.

And I believe you meant

	s/with/when/

in the patch Subject.

Johan