From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41DFC43331 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:41:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86F72184C for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:41:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727121AbfKKQlX (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:41:23 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:28029 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726954AbfKKQlW (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:41:22 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Nov 2019 08:41:21 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,293,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="193986462" Received: from magalleg-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.146.103]) ([10.251.146.103]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2019 08:41:19 -0800 Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/4] soundwire: sdw_slave: add new fields to track probe status To: Vinod Koul Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, tiwai@suse.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ranjani Sridharan , broonie@kernel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, jank@cadence.com, slawomir.blauciak@intel.com, Sanyog Kale , Bard liao , Rander Wang References: <20191023210657.32440-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <20191023210657.32440-2-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <20191103045604.GE2695@vkoul-mobl.Dlink> <20191108042940.GW952516@vkoul-mobl> <20191109111211.GB952516@vkoul-mobl> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart Message-ID: <5a2a40b3-5a3c-f80a-b2a4-33d821d5b0e6@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:34:19 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191109111211.GB952516@vkoul-mobl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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() 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?