Hi,Returning an error back to the caller is the right approach here. If the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Raju P L S S S N
<rplsssn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
@@ -148,7 +148,8 @@ int rpmh_rsc_invalidate(struct rsc_drv *drv)
static struct tcs_group *get_tcs_for_msg(struct rsc_drv *drv,
const struct tcs_request *msg)
{
- int type;
+ int type, ret;
+ struct tcs_group *tcs;
switch (msg->state) {
case RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE:
@@ -164,7 +165,25 @@ static struct tcs_group *get_tcs_for_msg(struct rsc_drv *drv,
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
- return get_tcs_of_type(drv, type);
+ /*
+ * If we are making an active request on a RSC that does not have a
+ * dedicated TCS for active state use, then re-purpose a wake TCS to
+ * send active votes.
+ * NOTE: The driver must be aware that this RSC does not have a
+ * dedicated AMC, and therefore would invalidate the sleep and wake
+ * TCSes before making an active state request.
+ */
+ tcs = get_tcs_of_type(drv, type);
+ if (msg->state == RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE && IS_ERR(tcs)) {
+ tcs = get_tcs_of_type(drv, WAKE_TCS);
+ if (!IS_ERR(tcs)) {
+ ret = rpmh_rsc_invalidate(drv);
+ if (ret)
+ return ERR_PTR(ret);
In v9 you looped as long as the "ret" was -EAGAIN. Now you're not.
Are all the callers setup to handle -EAGAIN or should you keep the
loop in for -EAGAIN? I don't think callers handle this well.
...or is there some reason that EAGAIN can't happen in this call to
rpmh_rsc_invalidate()?