On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 06:59:07PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 06:46:00PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:51:59PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > > Currently skl_pcode_try_request function doesn't
> > > properly handle return value it gets
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 06:46:00PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:51:59PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > Currently skl_pcode_try_request function doesn't
> > properly handle return value it gets from
> > snb_pcode_rw, but treats status != 0 as success,
> >
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 06:46:00PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:51:59PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > Currently skl_pcode_try_request function doesn't
> > properly handle return value it gets from
> > snb_pcode_rw, but treats status != 0 as success,
> >
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:51:59PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> Currently skl_pcode_try_request function doesn't
> properly handle return value it gets from
> snb_pcode_rw, but treats status != 0 as success,
> returning true, which basically doesn't allow
> to use retry/timeout mechanisms
Currently skl_pcode_try_request function doesn't
properly handle return value it gets from
snb_pcode_rw, but treats status != 0 as success,
returning true, which basically doesn't allow
to use retry/timeout mechanisms if PCode happens
to be busy and returns EGAIN or some other status
code not
