mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Cc: David Rau <David.Rau.opensource@dm.renesas.com>,
	support.opensource@diasemi.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
	perex@perex.cz, tiwai@suse.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bailideng@google.com,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: da7219: Improve the IRQ process to increase the stability
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 23:01:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y+1kNa8KYCUzgAfo@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABXOdTdv=+n8+UCgWUvyrZ6R0uAu48bODa3TA_2nUuMbUT7MUg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1590 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 08:06:35AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 5:10 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Copying in Guenter given the issues he raised with this, not
> > deleting context for his benefit.  It looks like this should
> > avoid the issues with the interrupt appearing locked up.

> It should since it limits the delay to cases where jack_inserted is
> false, but on the other side it hides the delay in an odd way.
> 
...

> Effectively this seems to be quite similar to moving the conditional
> sleep to the place where cancel_work_sync() is called. I would assume
> that will fix the problem (after all, the msleep() is no longer called
> unconditionally), but I don't see the benefit of introducing a worker
> to do that. Also, since there is no guarantee that the worker actually
> started by the time cancel_work_sync() is called, I would suspect that
> it may result in unexpected behavior if the worker has not started by
> that time, which I would assume can happen if the system is heavily
> loaded. It also makes the use of the ground switch (i.e., when to set
> and when to drop it) even more of a mystery than it is right now.

> Having said that, I don't really know or understand the code, so maybe
> this all makes sense and my feedback should be ignored.

Yes, I would certainly welcome more clarity especially around the
ground switch.  OTOH it does seem like an improvement over the
current situation so I think I'll go ahead and apply it for now,
hopefully it can be improved upon in future.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-15 23:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-15 10:10 David Rau
2023-02-15 13:10 ` Mark Brown
2023-02-15 16:06   ` Guenter Roeck
2023-02-15 23:01     ` Mark Brown [this message]
2023-02-16 13:23 ` Mark Brown

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=Y+1kNa8KYCUzgAfo@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=David.Rau.opensource@dm.renesas.com \
    --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=bailideng@google.com \
    --cc=groeck@chromium.org \
    --cc=groeck@google.com \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=perex@perex.cz \
    --cc=support.opensource@diasemi.com \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®