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]

Message-ID: <CAA+D8ANuLQuUO+VsABjt2t1ccK+LGayq13d6EEcV18=4KNaC+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:23:14 +0800
From:   Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...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 Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:00 AM Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 10:35:12AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:11 AM Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:39:44AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:57 AM Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > This is a good example.
> > > > We have used this change locally for a long time, so I think it is
> > > > safe to do this change, a little different with the recommandation.
> > >
> > > Any reason for we have to go against the recommendation?
> >
> > Previous code will enable TE and RE  together even for asynchronous
> > mode.
> > And for recommendation, previous code just consider the RX sync with
> > TX, but still violates the recommendation for TX sync with RX case.
> > So at least this new change is some kind of improvement.
>
> Okay. Let's change it then. Please make sure to update/remove
> those old comments in the trigger(). And it's probably better
> to mention that what we do now is a bit different from RM:
>         /*
>          * Enable the opposite direction for synchronous mode
>          * 1. Tx sync with Rx: only set RE for Rx; set TE & RE for Tx
>          * 2. Rx sync with Tx: only set TE for Tx; set RE & TE for Rx
>          *
>          * RM recommends to enable RE after TE for case 1 and to enable
>          * TE after RE for case 2, but we here may not always guarantee
>          * that happens: "arecord 1.wav; aplay 2.wav" in case 1 enables
>          * TE after RE, which is against what RM recommends but should
>          * be safe to do, judging by years of testing results.
>          */

Thank you for the agreement.

>
> Btw, do we need similar change for TRIGGER_STOP?

This is a good question. It is better to do change for STOP,
but I am afraid that there is no much test to guarantee the result.

best regards
wang shengjiu