lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:56:24 +0000
From:   Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To:     Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
CC:     Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, Mark <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Takashi <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Pierre <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Shreyas NC <shreyas.nc@...el.com>, <patches.audio@...el.com>,
        <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>,
        <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, <plai@...eaurora.org>,
        Sudheer Papothi <spapothi@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/14] soundwire: Add MIPI DisCo property helpers

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 02:48:50PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 07:59:40AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
> 
> > > > Apologies for the long and slightly vague comment, but I guess my
> > > > question is do you have a thought on how drivers should know when
> > > > it is safe to communicate with a SoundWire device?
> > > 
> > > IMO it is safe to communicate with SoundWire device when the Slave
> > > status is ATTACHED. In any case bus will report error if it is not able
> > > to communicate with SoundWire device.
> > 
> > Yeah I guess my point here is that there is currently no way in
> > this SoundWire framework for the slave driver to know if the
> > device is attached or not, unless I am missing something?  There
> > are calls by which the master can inform the framework, but
> > nothing to pass that on to the slave driver.
> 
> Nope, as Sanyog pointed out there are deterministic ways for Slave
> driver to find out. We can do that by:
>  a) check the slave->status and communicate only if status is SDW_SLAVE_ATTACHED
>  b) Implement sdw_slave_ops->update_status() which is invoked by Bus on any
>     status changes.
> 
> So to summarize, for a Slave driver during the probe, if the status is not
> SDW_SLAVE_ATTACHED it should not communicate and should implement
> sdw_slave_ops->update_status and attempt IO when this callback gets invoked
> with SDW_SLAVE_ATTACHED status.
> 
> Does that clarify and solve the problem.
> 

Ok apologies looks like this was my bad sorry for missing those.
That does indeed seem fine.

Thanks,
Charles

Powered by blists - more mailing lists