From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srinivas Kandagatla Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 6/6] soundwire: qcom: add support for SoundWire controller Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:29:54 +0100 Message-ID: <462620fc-ac91-6a36-46c7-7af0080f06cb@linaro.org> References: <20190607085643.932-1-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <20190607085643.932-7-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <249f9647-94d0-41d7-3b95-64c36d90f8e8@linux.intel.com> <40ea774c-8aa8-295d-e91e-71423b03c88d@linaro.org> <7269521a-ac89-3856-c18c-ffaaf64c0806@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7269521a-ac89-3856-c18c-ffaaf64c0806@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pierre-Louis Bossart , broonie@kernel.org, vkoul@kernel.org Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/06/2019 15:12, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: >>>> + >>>> +    if (dev_addr == SDW_BROADCAST_DEV_NUM) { >>>> +        ctrl->fifo_status = 0; >>>> +        ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ctrl->sp_cmd_comp, >>>> +                          msecs_to_jiffies(TIMEOUT_MS)); >>> >>> This is odd. The SoundWire spec does not handle writes to a single >>> device or broadcast writes differently. I don't see a clear reason >>> why you would only timeout for a broadcast write. >>> >> >> There is danger of blocking here without timeout. > > Right, and it's fine to add a timeout. The question is why add a timeout > *only* for a broadcast operation? It should be added for every > transaction IMO, unless you have a reason not to do so. > I did try this before, the issue is when we read/write registers from interrupt handler, these can be deadlocked as we will be interrupt handler waiting for another completion interrupt, which will never happen unless we return from the first interrupt. thanks, srini >>>