Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 17:20:20 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, tiwai@suse.de,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
        broonie@kernel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org,
        jank@cadence.com, slawomir.blauciak@intel.com,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@intel.com>,
        Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>,
        Rander Wang <rander.wang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/4] soundwire: sdw_slave: add new fields to
 track probe status
Message-ID: <20191114115020.GU952516@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20191023210657.32440-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
 <20191023210657.32440-2-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
 <20191103045604.GE2695@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
 <f53b28bb-1ec7-a400-54ed-51fd55819ecd@linux.intel.com>
 <20191108042940.GW952516@vkoul-mobl>
 <e3e10c25-84dc-f4e7-e94b-d18493450021@linux.intel.com>
 <20191109111211.GB952516@vkoul-mobl>
 <5a2a40b3-5a3c-f80a-b2a4-33d821d5b0e6@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a2a40b3-5a3c-f80a-b2a4-33d821d5b0e6@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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