public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>,
	vkoul@kernel.org, yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com,
	sanyog.r.kale@intel.com
Cc: patches@opensource.cirrus.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] soundwire: bus: Don't exit early if no device IDs were programmed
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 19:09:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c68e5f78-51cc-6b16-dc7d-4540b78e4d2f@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49ee34ef-7d64-aeb6-eb1b-6cdbfd9e36ae@opensource.cirrus.com>



On 9/12/22 14:25, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> On 12/09/2022 12:43, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/7/22 10:52, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>>> Only exit sdw_handle_slave_status() right after calling
>>> sdw_program_device_num() if it actually programmed an ID into at
>>> least one device.
>>>
>>> sdw_handle_slave_status() should protect itself against phantom
>>> device #0 ATTACHED indications. In that case there is no actual
>>> device still on #0. The early exit relies on there being a status
>>> change to ATTACHED on the reprogrammed device to trigger another
>>> call to sdw_handle_slave_status() which will then handle the status
>>> of all peripherals. If no device was actually programmed with an
>>> ID there won't be a new ATTACHED indication. This can lead to the
>>> status of other peripherals not being handled.
>>>
>>> The status passed to sdw_handle_slave_status() is obviously always
>>> from a point of time in the past, and may indicate accumulated
>>> unhandled events (depending how the bus manager operates). It's
>>> possible that a device ID is reprogrammed but the last PING status
>>> captured state just before that, when it was still reporting on
>>> ID #0. Then sdw_handle_slave_status() is called with this PING info,
>>> just before a new PING status is available showing it now on its new
>>> ID. So sdw_handle_slave_status() will receive a phantom report of a
>>> device on #0, but it will not find one.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
>>> index 6e569a875a9b..0bcc2d161eb9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
>>> @@ -736,20 +736,19 @@ static int sdw_program_device_num(struct
>>> sdw_bus *bus)
>>>       struct sdw_slave_id id;
>>>       struct sdw_msg msg;
>>>       bool found;
>>> -    int count = 0, ret;
>>> +    int count = 0, num_programmed = 0, ret;
>>>       u64 addr;
>>>         /* No Slave, so use raw xfer api */
>>>       ret = sdw_fill_msg(&msg, NULL, SDW_SCP_DEVID_0,
>>>                  SDW_NUM_DEV_ID_REGISTERS, 0, SDW_MSG_FLAG_READ, buf);
>>>       if (ret < 0)
>>> -        return ret;
>>> +        return 0;
>>
>> this doesn't seem quite right to me, there are multiple -EINVAL cases
>> handled in sdw_fill_msg().
>>
>> I didn't check if all these error cases are irrelevant in that specific
>> enumeration case, if that was the case maybe we need to break that
>> function in two helpers so that all the checks can be skipped.
>>
> 
> I don't think that there's anything useful that
> sdw_modify_slave_status() could do to recover from an error.
> 
> If any device IDs were programmed then, according to the statement in
> sdw_modify_slave_status()
> 
>     * programming a device number will have side effects,
>     * so we deal with other devices at a later time
> 
> if this is true, then we need to exit to deal with what _was_
> programmed, even if one of them failed.
> 
> If nothing was programmed, and there was an error, we can't bail out of
> sdw_modify_slave_status(). We have status for other devices which
> we can't simply ignore.
> 
> Ultimately I can't see how pushing the error code up is useful.
> sdw_modify_slave_status() can't really do any effective recovery action,
> and the original behavior of giving up and returning means that
> an error in programming dev ID potentially causes collateral damage to
> the status of other peripherals.

I was suggesting something like


void sdw_fill_msg_data(...)
{
  copy data in the msg structure
}

int sdw_fill_msg(...)
{
    sdw_fill_msg_data();
    handle_error_cases
}

and in sdw sdw_program_device_num() we call directly sdw_fill_msg_data()

So no change in functionality beyond explicit skip of error checks that
are not relevant and cannot be handled even if they were.




  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-12 17:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-07  8:52 [PATCH v2 0/5] soundwire: Fixes for spurious and missing UNATTACH Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-07  8:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] soundwire: cadence: fix updating slave status when a bus has multiple peripherals Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-07  8:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] soundwire: bus: Don't lose unattach notifications Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-07  8:52 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] soundwire: bus: Don't re-enumerate before status is UNATTACHED Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-12 11:00   ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2022-09-07  8:52 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] soundwire: cadence: Fix lost ATTACHED interrupts when enumerating Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-12 11:05   ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2022-09-12 12:36     ` Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-07  8:52 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] soundwire: bus: Don't exit early if no device IDs were programmed Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-12 11:43   ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2022-09-12 12:25     ` Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-12 17:09       ` Pierre-Louis Bossart [this message]
2022-09-13 15:30         ` Richard Fitzgerald
2022-09-13 17:59           ` Pierre-Louis Bossart

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c68e5f78-51cc-6b16-dc7d-4540b78e4d2f@linux.intel.com \
    --to=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@opensource.cirrus.com \
    --cc=rf@opensource.cirrus.com \
    --cc=sanyog.r.kale@intel.com \
    --cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
    --cc=yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox