linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 15/40] soundwire: cadence_master: handle multiple status reports per Slave

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:   Fri, 2 Aug 2019 21:31:15 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jank@...ence.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        slawomir.blauciak@...el.com, Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 15/40] soundwire: cadence_master: handle multiple
 status reports per Slave

On 02-08-19, 10:29, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 8/2/19 7:20 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 25-07-19, 18:40, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:

> > > +				status[i] = SDW_SLAVE_UNATTACHED;
> > > +				break;
> > > +			case 1:
> > > +				status[i] = SDW_SLAVE_ATTACHED;
> > > +				break;
> > > +			case 2:
> > > +				status[i] = SDW_SLAVE_ALERT;
> > > +				break;
> > > +			default:
> > > +				status[i] = SDW_SLAVE_RESERVED;
> > > +				break;
> > > +			}
> > 
> > we have same logic in the code block preceding this, maybe good idea to
> > write a helper and use for both
> 
> Yes, I am thinking about this. There are multiple cases where we want to
> re-check the status and clear some bits, so helpers would be good.
> 
> > 
> > Also IIRC we can have multiple status set right?
> 
> Yes, the status bits are sticky and mirror all values reported in PING
> frames. I am still working on how to clear those bits, there are cases where
> we clear bits and end-up never hearing from that device ever again. classic
> edge/level issue I suppose.

Then the case logic above doesn't work, it should be like the code block
preceding this..

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod