On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 09:32:12AM +0800, Chuhong Yuan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 1:00 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There's also the case where runtime PM is there and the device is active > > at suspend - it's not that there isn't a problem, it's that we can't > > unconditionally do a disable because we don't know if there was a > > matching enable. It'll need to be conditional on the runtime PM state. > How about adding a check like #ifndef CONFIG_PM? > I use this in an old version of the mentioned patch. That won't handle the runtime PM problem, the state will vary depending on what the system is doing at the time. > However, that is not accepted since it seems not symmetric with enable > in the probe. > But I don't find an explicit runtime PM call in the probe here so the > revision pattern of It's got runtime PM ops though so that's clearly a bug that needs to be fixed itself.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
