Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mailbox: add STMicroelectronics STM32 IPCC driver

[Fabien DESSENNE]

On 06/04/18 18:20, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 06/04/18 14:56, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/04/18 11:38, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> ....
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       /* irq */
>>>>>> +       for (i = 0; i < IPCC_IRQ_NUM; i++) {
>>>>>> +               ipcc->irqs[i] = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, irq_name[i]);
>>>>>> +               if (ipcc->irqs[i] < 0) {
>>>>>> +                       dev_err(dev, "no IRQ specified %s\n", irq_name[i]);
>>>>>> +                       ret = ipcc->irqs[i];
>>>>>> +                       goto err_clk;
>>>>>> +               }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +               ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ipcc->irqs[i], NULL,
>>>>>> +                                               irq_thread[i], IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>>>>> +                                               dev_name(dev), ipcc);
>>>>>>
>>>>> In your interrupt handlers you don't do anything that could block.
>>>>> Threads only adds some delay to your message handling.
>>>>> So maybe use devm_request_irq() ?
>>>> The interrupt handlers call mbox_chan_received_data() /
>>>> mbox_chan_txdone(), which call in turn client's rx_callback() /
>>>> tx_done() / tx_prepare() which behavior may be unsafe. Hence, using a
>>>> threaded irq here seems to be a good choice.
>>>>
>>> rx_callback() is supposed to be atomic.
>> I am worried with this atomic part (and honestly I did not note that the
>> callbacks were expected to be)
>>
>> In my case, remoteproc->virtio->rpmsg is the mailbox client defining the
>> rx_callback.
>> If I follow your suggestion, I shall make this rx_callback Atomic in
>> remoteproc (or in virtio or rpmsg). And this does not seem to be so
>> simple (add a worker in the middle of somewhere?). Bjorn, feel free to
>> comment this part.
>>
>> An alternate implementation consists in using a threaded IRQ for the
>> mailbox interrupt.
>> This option is not only simple, but also ensures to split bottom & half
>> parts at the irq level which is IMHO a general good practice.
>>
>> I can see that some mailbox clients implement callbacks that are NOT
>> atomic and I suspect this is the reason why some mailbox drivers use
>> threaded_irq (rockchip mailbox splits the bottom & half parts).
>>
>> Would it be acceptable to consider the "atomic client callback" as a
>> non-strict rule ?
>>
> Of course you can traverse atomic path from sleepable context (but not
> vice-versa).

So, to be sure we understand each other, I can use threaded_irq, right?

> Please send in the final revision.
>
> Thanks.