Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:54:14 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] ASoC: cs43130: Allow driver to work without IRQ connection |
| |
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:46:26PM +0000, Maciej Strozek wrote: > W dniu 20/11/2023 o 14:40, Mark Brown pisze:
> > > + } else { > > > + return 0; > > > + }
> > Is it a bug to call this function without to_poll set to something > > known? This will just silently ignore it which seems wrong and is > > inconsitent with the handling in the interrupt case which will wait for > > the the completion to be signalled and report a timeout on error.
> In interrupt case 0 means timeout (and calling function should expect 0 as > error/timeout), so the only inconsistency I see is in not waiting before > returning a timeout, but that would be needlessly wasting time? > Do you think adding a debug print or a comment would help here?
It seems like a clear code bug if this is ever called with an unknown completion, I'd expect a WARN_ON_ONCE() there. The lack of a delay is potentially going to affect how any error handling works which doesn't feel ideal though the users look fine right now. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |