Hi,
thanks, this looks like a good improvement! Some minor notes:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> Both pm_runtime_force_suspend() and pm_runtime_force_resume() have
> some implicit checks, so it can make code flow more straightfoward if we
> separate runtime and systemd suspend callbacks.
straightforward -> straightforward
and systemd? Maybe just "system suspend"? :)
> While at it, also remove AZX_DCAPS_SUSPEND_SPURIOUS_WAKEUP, as the
> original bug commit a6630529aecb ("ALSA: hda: Workaround for spurious
> wakeups on some Intel platforms") solves doesn't happen with this
> patch.
Hmm, so this was gone already with the v1 version (so not related to
programming the WAKEEN when going to system suspend)?
> @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ struct azx {
> unsigned int align_buffer_size:1;
> unsigned int region_requested:1;
> unsigned int disabled:1; /* disabled by vga_switcheroo */
> + unsigned int prepared:1;
I wonder if "pm_prepared" would be better as ALSA API has a prepare method
as well and this is not related. OTOH, if ok to Takashi, ok for me as
well.
> + azx_writew(chip, WAKEEN, azx_readw(chip, WAKEEN) &
> + ~STATESTS_INT_MASK);
This would fit to one line now.
Br, Kai
