On 11-11-19, 10:34, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 11/9/19 5:12 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 08-11-19, 08:55, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11/7/19 10:29 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > On 04-11-19, 08:32, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/2/19 11:56 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > > On 23-10-19, 16:06, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > Changes to the sdw_slave structure needed to solve race conditions on > > > > > > > driver probe. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please explain the race you have observed, it would be a very > > > > > > useful to document it as well > > > > > > > > > > the races are explained in the [PATCH 00/18] soundwire: code hardening and > > > > > suspend-resume support series. > > > > > > > > It would make sense to explain it here as well to give details to > > > > reviewers, there is nothing wrong with too much detail! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The functionality is added in the next patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > which one..? > > > > > > > > > > [PATCH 00/18] soundwire: code hardening and suspend-resume support > > > > > > > > Yeah great! let me play detective with 18 patch series. I asked for a > > > > patch and got a series! > > > > > > > > Again, please help the maintainer to help you. We would love to see this > > > > merged as well, but please step up and give more details in cover > > > > letter and changelogs. I shouldn't need to do guesswork and scan through the > > > > inbox to find the context! > > > > > > We are clearly not going anywhere. > > > > Correct as you don't seem to provide clear answers, I am asking again > > which patch implements the new fields added here, how difficult is it to > > provide the *specific* patch which implements this so that I can compare > > the implementation and see why this is needed and apply if fine! > > > > But no you will not provide a clear answer and start ranting! > > > > > I partitioned the patches to make your maintainer life easier and help the > > > integration of SoundWire across two trees. All I get is negative feedback, > > > grand-standing, and zero comments on actual changes. > > > > No you get asked specific question which you do not like and start off > > on a tangent! > > > > > For the record, I am mindful of reviewer/maintainer workload, and I did > > > contact you in September to check your availability and provided a pointer > > > to initial code changes. I did send a first version a week prior to your > > > travel/vacation, I resend another version when you were back and waited yet > > > another two weeks to resend a second version. I also contacted Takashi, Mark > > > and you to suggest this code partition, and did not get any pushback. It's > > > not like I am pushing stuff down your throat, I have been patient and > > > considerate. > > > > > > Please start with the patches "soundwire: code hardening and suspend-resume > > > support" and come back to this interface description when you have reviewed > > > these changes. It's not detective work, it's working around the consequences > > > of having separate trees for Audio and SoundWire. > > > > Again, which patch in the series does implement these new members! > > It's really straightforward...here is the match between headers and > functionality: > > [PATCH v2 1/5] soundwire: sdw_slave: add new fields to track probe status > [PATCH v2 02/19] soundwire: fix race between driver probe and update_status > callback > > [PATCH v2 2/5] soundwire: add enumeration_complete structure > [PATCH v2 12/19] soundwire: add enumeration_complete signaling > > [PATCH v2 3/5] soundwire: add initialization_complete definition > [PATCH v2 13/19] soundwire: bus: add initialization_complete signaling > > [PATCH v2 4/5] soundwire: intel: update interfaces between ASoC and > SoundWire > [PATCH v2 5/5] soundwire: intel: update stream callbacks for hwparams/free > stream operations > [PATCH v2 13/14] soundwire: intel: free all resources on hw_free() Thanks for the pointers, I will look at these patches and do the needful for this series > I suggested an approach that you didn't comment on, and now I am not sure > what to make of the heated wording and exclamation marks. You did not answer > to Liam's question on links between ASoC/SoundWire - despite the fact that > drivers/soundwire cannot be an isolated subsystem, both the Intel and > Qualcomm solutions have a big fat 'depends on SND_SOC'. > > At this point I am formally asking for your view and guidance on how we are > going to do the SoundWire/ASoC integration. It's now your time to make > suggestions on what the flow should be between you and Mark/Takashi. If you > don't want this initial change to the header files, then what is your > proposal? It is going to be as it would be for any other subsystem. Please mention in the cover letter about required dependency. In case asoc needs this I will create a immutable tag and in reverse case Mark will do so. It is not really an issue if we get the information ahead of time -- ~Vinod _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
