Hello Bagas, thanks for the prompt review! On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 09:08:03 +0700 Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/8/22 21:17, luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > +Mux-locked caveats > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +When using a mux-locked mux, be aware of the following restrictions: > > + > > +* If you build a topology with a mux-locked mux being the parent > > + of a parent-locked mux, this might break the expectation from the > > + parent-locked mux that the root adapter is locked during the > > + transaction. > > + > > +* It is not safe to build arbitrary topologies with two (or more) > > + mux-locked muxes that are not siblings, when there are address > > + collisions between the devices on the child adapters of these > > + non-sibling muxes. > > + > > + I.e. the select-transfer-deselect transaction targeting e.g. device > > + address 0x42 behind mux-one may be interleaved with a similar > > + operation targeting device address 0x42 behind mux-two. The > > + intension with such a topology would in this hypothetical example > > + be that mux-one and mux-two should not be selected simultaneously, > > + but mux-locked muxes do not guarantee that in all topologies. > > + > > These two sentences in n. 2) can be combined into a single paragraph. > Also, did you mean s/intension/intention/? This patch does nothing but reformatting the current text. Definitely "intension" is a mistake that I didn't spot, I'm adding a patch to fix that. About the paragraph split, I have no strong opinion but I'm feeling OK with the current layout. It splits the generic statement from the example and IMHO helps readability. Feel free to send a patch to change that though, if you think it is useful. -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
