From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Richter Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/39] firewire-lib: Add a fallback at RCODE_CANCELLED Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:39:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20140228213948.2817649b@stein> References: <1393558072-25926-1-git-send-email-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp> <1393558072-25926-19-git-send-email-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp> <20140228212535.7606e0d8@stein> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFFA26572E for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:39:51 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20140228212535.7606e0d8@stein> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Sakamoto Cc: tiwai@suse.de, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, clemens@ladisch.de, ffado-devel@lists.sf.net List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Feb 28 Stefan Richter wrote: > - Or the AV/C target may still be busy processing a previous command. > In this case, the specification accepts that the target does not send > any response to subsequent requests at all until it is done with the > previous work. To be more precise: The specification accepts that the target *ignores* incoming AV/C command frames while processing an AV/C command. This is indicated to the requester by lack of a response to any ignored request. To me, this implies that the target must send a response to any request that it did not ignore, i.e. to any command that it executed. On the other hand, I don't think there is any rollback behavior specified or practical in cases when the target is unable to deliver a response to the initiator. -- Stefan Richter -=====-====- --=- ===-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/