[dbaluta]

This is legacy and was used to keep current
message from host.

It is now unused so remove it.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta daniel.baluta@nxp.com

[lgirdwood]

Some CI is still pending, should be able to merge tomorrow

[ranj063]

@dbaluta if you remove this, there's no need for the msg variable too?

[dbaluta]

@ranj063, true. Unless, we want to keep the debugging message consistent.

`
msg = shim_read(SHIM_IPCXL);

	/* TODO: place message in Q and process later */
	/* It's not Q ATM, may overwrite */
	if (_ipc->host_pending) {
		trace_ipc_error("ipc: dropping msg 0x%x", msg);
		trace_ipc_error(" isr 0x%x imrd 0x%x ipcxh 0x%x",
				isr, shim_read(SHIM_IMRD),
				shim_read(SHIM_IPCXH));

`

But I guess, msg will always be 0.

In my opinion, we should merge the patch as it is now. And then when we really figure out that this is a relict from the past to also remove it.

[ranj063]

@dbaluta yes. I think its redundant. So we should just remove the trace logs and msg altogether.

[dbaluta]

@ranj063, so do you mean something like this.

https://pastebin.com/xsFYtwXv

Sorry for using pastebin but inserting code here just kills me.

So, the best thing to do this would be to attach another patch to this series, where we really explain why in case of _ipc->host_pending == true we just do nothing and also do not print any error message.

[ranj063]

@dbaluta the second trace error message is still useful to indicate if we do drop a message. I was only suggesting to remove the msg part of it because it is not really useful.

[dbaluta]

@ranj063 ok, it's clear now. will respin.

[dbaluta]

@ranj063 @lgirdwood I have updated the patch as per Ranjani's comments. I forced pushed into my branch, I hope this is the right way to send v2 on github.

[plbossart]

On 1/23/19 4:23 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote: @ranj063 <https://github.com/ranj063> @lgirdwood <https://github.com/lgirdwood> I have updated the patch as per Ranjani's comments. I forced pushed into my branch, I hope this is the right way to send v2 on github.

Thanks Daniel. I'd like feedback from the original designers of the IPC (@lgirdwood and @keyonjie) to figure out why we need this header at all (c.f. other emails on mailing list). we really ought to clean-up the entire IPC.

…

[lgirdwood]

@plbossart the header was originally used on legacy for SHIM message cmd type, but is superfluous since we always need to read the mailbox anyway.