Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] ath11k: set register access length for MHI driver

[Bhaumik Bhatt]

On 2021-06-23 10:34 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Hi Kalle,
> >
> > On 2021-06-14 09:02 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > > Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Hemant Kumar <hemantk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam 
> > > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 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