From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Henningsson <david.henningsson@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Show processing coefficients in codec proc
 file
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:46:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4C6E9541.6000402@canonical.com>
References: <4C6D7546.4000506@canonical.com>
	<s5h4oeqfoe7.wl%tiwai@suse.de>	<4C6D7C98.5030207@canonical.com>
	<s5hy6c2e4gs.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
Received: from adelie.canonical.com (adelie.canonical.com [91.189.90.139])
	by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBC724536
	for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>;
	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:46:28 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <s5hy6c2e4gs.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
	<mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
	<mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org

2010-08-19 22:24, Takashi Iwai skrev:
> At Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:48:56 +0200,
> David Henningsson wrote:
>>
>> 2010-08-19 20:28, Takashi Iwai skrev:
>>> At Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:17:42 +0200,
>>> David Henningsson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch is helpful for tracking down bugs without having all
>>>> information about the chip.
>>>
>>> I don't want to change coef index in reading a proc file in general.
>>
>> Good point. But I think the solution to that problem would be to
>> - read current index
>> - do the loop
>> - restore current index
>>
>> ...and perhaps protect that with an appropriate mutex (which one)?
>>
>>> If any, you should implement a codec-specific hook.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I don't really see how that would help...?
> 
> If it's specific to a codec, then you know whether reading the coef
> in that way can be harmful or not.  It's not only about the race
> via proc file but also the influence of coef on the actual codec
> behavior.

Oh, so there are chips that are *that* broken...

Yet it could be a lifesaver so I wouldn't want to give up on the idea
just yet...

Do you know off the top of your head approximately what codec chips this
is about, where reading a coef (or setting its index) can cause unwanted
side-effects?


-- 
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
http://launchpad.net/~diwic