On 2019-07-22 23:12, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 7/20/19 2:45 PM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
Existing IPC framework omits crucial part of the entire communication:
reply header. Some IPCs cannot function at all without the access to
said header. Update the sst-ipc with new sst_ipc_message structure to
represent both request and reply allowing reply-processing handlers to
save received responses.
Despite the range of changes required for model to be updated, no
functional changes are made for core hanswell, baytrail and skylake
message handlers. Reply-processing handlers now save received response
header yet no usage is added by default.
To allow for future changes, righful kings of IPC kingdom need to be put
back on the throne. This update addresses one of them: LARGE_CONFIG_GET.
Cezary Rojewski (5):
ASoC: Intel: Update request-reply IPC model
I had a doubt on the structure of this patchset since you first change
the structure definitions/prototypes and then use them in follow-up
patches, and sure enough if I apply the first patch only the compilation
is broken, see below.
The rule is that we can't break git bisect. And if you squash the
patches together, then you have a really complicated patch to
review/test, so like I said earlier such invasive changes in shared
prototypes are really painful.
Thanks for your time and input, Pierre!
Agreed on the patchset structure. This wasn't a random mistake, though.
Knew that meshing them all together immediately (v1) would be very hard
for readers to review, despite the _simplicity_ of actual solution:
explicit listing of message parts -> containment within sst_ipc_message.
I'll combine them together - except for the large_config_get one. Had
these issues been addressed earlier, patches such as this wouldn't have
been needed at all ;/
Czarek
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
