Re: Re: [PATCH v4] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Enhance check for VRM in-flight request

[Elliot Berman]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 10:18:25PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:55:44AM +0530, Maulik Shah wrote:
> > Each RPMh VRM accelerator resource has 3 or 4 contiguous 4-byte aligned
> > addresses associated with it. These control voltage, enable state, mode,
> > and in legacy targets, voltage headroom. The current in-flight request
> > checking logic looks for exact address matches. Requests for different
> > addresses of the same RPMh resource as thus not detected as in-flight.
> > 
> > Add new cmd-db API cmd_db_match_resource_addr() to enhance the in-flight
> > request check for VRM requests by ignoring the address offset.
> > 
> > This ensures that only one request is allowed to be in-flight for a given
> > VRM resource. This is needed to avoid scenarios where request commands are
> > carried out by RPMh hardware out-of-order leading to LDO regulator
> > over-current protection triggering.
> > 
> > Fixes: 658628e7ef78 ("drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: add RPMH controller for QCOM SoCs")
> > cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> # sm8650-qrd
> > Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <quic_mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Simplify cmd_db_match_resource_addr()
> > - Remove unrelated changes to newly added logic
> > - Update function description comments
> 
> You changed things, but retained Konrad's Reviewed-by...
> 
> > - Replace Signed-off-by: with Tested-by: from Elliot
> 
> Did Elliot test v4, or did you just translate his incorrect(?) s-o-b
> from v1 into a tested-by?
> 
> We're about to write into the git history that Elliot says this version
> is tested to the best of his abilities...
> 

No, I asked for it:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240214105605460-0800.eberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/