From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-179.mta0.migadu.com (out-179.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6F33A453B for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2026 19:14:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786302850; cv=none; b=CoxXkFH0JSDOc9+Rdl4efcdxJ7MJfYh8nTs9rj/49LNns0f7OAo4glvCSBYj1AZWVqkGqmx4gLs2YXA8PpmSRWfS5vLPd4QSfjX1YOt5d1RjV6sC+z97lU0jfpwAZsyxmtisLb20jEa/0xh3GfGGTu8CNs8XkExiz8qle3g52iE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786302850; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e/9vvsTJVKVZFPYo2QTYQayngoUsuF2tWwDl5Poy+UI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=K2Y3tAEmF7xSSy0XGOjBtXZOzru7msWErCxBaHDeUY/wdlCduKZnjynS7pLIYhqML/KL15+SbRRTF34iJ1SgqL7QHvoZR1+7qwZI3CXR/lFmmbNSt73qN4YNsZnl8YV37m91kHNK8Tm1ScMh9LmpnA8lye49N664WBeqdQLJx+w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=bNvXCkmD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="bNvXCkmD" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1786302831; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ROJLtfWfkWbQkaoSvTu2uuaIzMI91J1WeRYlRsawSVs=; b=bNvXCkmDi2gubwaT2w/VIMz4R0rT/HSed78AIFPjQ9TRVhDAjsD5ERIF2aYwPKb/RgmsmF OocH1cM6JnTM8OU94AdXppYb9xs0WgvBrmI3X0mEn1nqGb5t5WOOcMH7W14uRdlw8bhLAn n1tGGiG/ke2hC10sjy0BToRxghKAkWw= Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2026 21:13:48 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: tas2783: let regmap-sdw-mbq poll for deferred transactions To: Ville Saarinen , Shenghao Ding , Kevin Lu , Baojun Xu , Sen Wang Cc: Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Charles Keepax References: <20260809101541.4969-1-wiza@saarinenkoti.fi> <20260809101541.4969-2-wiza@saarinenkoti.fi> <413bdfd6-e0b6-4a64-9e60-cfe25ac684be@linux.dev> <51a70023-9eaf-4d50-8b87-60fdb73cf08a@saarinenkoti.fi> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Pierre-Louis Bossart In-Reply-To: <51a70023-9eaf-4d50-8b87-60fdb73cf08a@saarinenkoti.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT > Thanks for taking the time to review this. I am a bit of a kernel noob, > but I completely agree with you and the spec: FUNCTION_STATUS cannot be > deferred. > > I think my commit message caused a misunderstanding. The patch doesn't > defer the status read: > > The hardware is actually returning COMMAND_IGNORED for the UDMPU23 > Cluster Index write, which is the only control tas2783_sdca_deferrable() > flags as true. > > I only added FUNCTION_STATUS to mbq_size to expose it to -> > readable_reg(). Without that, regmap_sdw_mbq_poll_busy() considers the > status register unreadable, skips checking the busy bit for the deferred > UDMPU23 write, and instantly fails. I think your patch exposes a problem in the initial implementation of regmap_sdw_mbq_poll_busy(). FUNCTION_STATUS is a readable register by default, not sure why we would ever need to test if it's readable. Adding Charles for additional comments, this part looks questionable with a possible register side-effect. reg = SDW_SDCA_CTL(SDW_SDCA_CTL_FUNC(reg), 0, SDCA_CTL_ENTITY_0_FUNCTION_STATUS, 0); if (ctx->readable_reg(dev, reg)) { <<< are we testing the correct reg?