Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:19:09 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
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: <d13f5857-f386-46b0-9bdd-d832b35617c0@sirena.org.uk>
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>
 <20231120161638.GJ32655@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rzS+1eaHwgk3+pb4"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231120161638.GJ32655@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
Precedence: bulk


--rzS+1eaHwgk3+pb4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 04:16:38PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:54:14PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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.

Yes, that'd help with clarity in terms of the interface - the completion
API is a bit non-standard here.

--rzS+1eaHwgk3+pb4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmVbhvwACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DTugf/Xo+maNejN5Jyb9v31+Y+fHdHGg1J8zN/OqLLyg4DRlqQvEHLQ0Z4gc2O
bFjezKAU1O/mblEtNuyzjXwdnSIsDlEs0eeISe+iaHEJo9OLpvObin3ChBrVbT4o
lmFIYeP5eWNcNlAKZd9y+tr+S9puRpVPZASSH0/QUOtfQYpO5vmlNZyynqqSUhdg
NKi2XzdLK3xLKDM55bP2RTS4TDhOe4O5VJWdVRDu59m+6Und1K1rIubf0GRaIpHQ
h9SycOlh0X2BRRBBQEqoCgE2R/vWBS9NhCban4yRN2ZOfdlfAqsEFvEWJ5utLkpR
yAEkAerxrkLam35ISNijLA4euRO1Uw==
=Qcqi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rzS+1eaHwgk3+pb4--