Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:16:38 +0000
From:   Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
CC:     Maciej Strozek <mstrozek@opensource.cirrus.com>,
        James Schulman <james.schulman@cirrus.com>,
        David Rhodes <david.rhodes@cirrus.com>,
        "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>, <patches@opensource.cirrus.com>,
        <linux-sound@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ASoC: cs43130: Allow driver to work without IRQ
 connection
Message-ID: <20231120161638.GJ32655@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
References: <20231120141734.76679-1-mstrozek@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <7248897a-0b59-4cdc-9915-d3297f2d6efe@sirena.org.uk>
 <261e118d-529b-0ce0-5524-d24d767fa92f@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <c031657a-a1ec-44eb-8885-afee68d7523b@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c031657a-a1ec-44eb-8885-afee68d7523b@sirena.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:54:14PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:46:26PM +0000, Maciej Strozek wrote:
> > W dniu 20/11/2023 o?14:40, Mark Brown pisze:
> 
> > > > +		} else {
> > > > +			return 0;
> > > > +		}
> 
> > > Is it a bug to call this function without to_poll set to something
> > > known?  This will just silently ignore it which seems wrong and is
> > > inconsitent with the handling in the interrupt case which will wait for
> > > the the completion to be signalled and report a timeout on error.
> 
> > In interrupt case 0 means timeout (and calling function should expect 0 as
> > error/timeout), so the only inconsistency I see is in not waiting before
> > returning a timeout, but that would be needlessly wasting time?
> > Do you think adding a debug print or a comment would help here?
> 
> It seems like a clear code bug if this is ever called with an unknown
> completion, I'd expect a WARN_ON_ONCE() there.  The lack of a delay is
> potentially going to affect how any error handling works which doesn't
> feel ideal though the users look fine right now.

I guess perhaps another option might be to not stick so strictly
to the wait_for_completion_timeout API. This function could
return an -EINVAL here and a -ETIMEDOUT for a timeout then the
callers could be updated accordingly.

Thanks,
Charles