From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: ASoC: nau8825: cross talk suppression measurement function Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:00:12 +0300 Message-ID: <20160620100012.GK32247@mwanda> References: <20160615123352.GA7136@mwanda> <57674C20.3080707@nuvoton.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1183E265130 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:00:33 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57674C20.3080707@nuvoton.com> 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: John Hsu Cc: YHCHuang@nuvoton.com, AP MS30 Linux ALSA , broonie@kernel.org, CTLIN0@nuvoton.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:51:28AM +0800, John Hsu wrote: > Is it better to separate this function to two case, one locked with > timeout and the other not? Do you have any suggestion about it? > Thank you. It should return the error code and the callers should handle it. We always have to know if we have the lock or not. regards, dan carpenter