linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_sai: Clean code for synchronize mode

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, 3 Aug 2020 14:57:35 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To:     Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>
Cc:     Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>, Xiubo Li <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_sai: Clean code for synchronize mode

On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:04:23PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:

> > > clock generation. The TCSR.TE is no need to enabled when only RX
> > > is enabled.
> >
> > You are correct if there's only RX running without TX joining.
> > However, that's something we can't guarantee. Then we'd enable
> > TE after RE is enabled, which is against what RM recommends:
> >
> > # From 54.3.3.1 Synchronous mode in IMX6SXRM
> > # If the receiver bit clock and frame sync are to be used by
> > # both the transmitter and receiver, it is recommended that
> > # the receiver is the last enabled and the first disabled.
> >
> > I remember I did this "ugly" design by strictly following what
> > RM says. If hardware team has updated the RM or removed this
> > limitation, please quote in the commit logs.
> 
> There is no change in RM and same recommandation.
> 
> My change does not violate the RM. The direction which generates
> the clock is still last enabled.

Using Tx syncing with Rx clock for example,
T1: arecord (non-stop) => set RE
T2: aplay => set TE then RE (but RE is already set at T1)

Anything that I am missing?

> > > +             if (!sai->synchronous[TX] && sai->synchronous[RX] && !tx) {
> > > +                     regmap_update_bits(sai->regmap, FSL_SAI_xCSR((!tx), ofs),
> > > +                                        FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE, FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE);
> > > +             } else if (!sai->synchronous[RX] && sai->synchronous[TX] && tx) {
> > > +                     regmap_update_bits(sai->regmap, FSL_SAI_xCSR((!tx), ofs),
> > > +                                        FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE, FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE);
> >
> > Two identical regmap_update_bits calls -- both on !tx (RX?)
> The content for regmap_update_bits is the same, but the precondition
> is different.
> The first one is for tx=false and enable TCSR.TE. (TX generate clock)
> The second one is for tx=true and enable RSCR.RE (RX generate clock)

Why not merge them?

+		if ((!sai->synchronous[TX] && sai->synchronous[RX] && !tx) ||
+		   ((!sai->synchronous[RX] && sai->synchronous[TX] && tx) {