Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:33:02 -0700 | From | Bhaumik Bhatt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver |
| |
On 2021-06-23 10:34 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@codeaurora.org> writes: > >> 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. > > Just to be clear, this is not about me picking up any patches > separately. I was instead making sure git-bisect works correctly, as it > can randomly choose to test any commit in the tree. But based on your > description everything seems to be in order in this patchset and bisect > will work correctly. > > git-bisect is an important tool for me when I'm searching the root > cause > for ath11k regressions, that's why I'm so careful to make sure it > works. OK. Understood.
Thanks, Bhaumik --- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |