On Mon, 30 May 2022 12:34:15 +0200, Charles Keepax wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:14:26PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:36:39 +0200, > > Charles Keepax wrote: > > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:18:43AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:08:46 +0200, > > > > Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 06:13:38PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 25 May 2022 15:16:21 +0200, > > > > > > Vitaly Rodionov wrote: > > > Yeah that should be what is happening here. Although it looks > > > like this code might be removing all the controls if the firmware > > > is unloaded. I will discuss that with the guys, we normal just > > > disable the controls on the wm_adsp stuff. > > > > OK, that sounds good. Basically my concern came up from the code > > snippet doing asynchronous addition/removal via work. This showed > > some yellow signal, as such a pattern doesn't appear in the normal > > implementation. If this is (still) really necessary, it has to be > > clarified as an exception. > > > > Hm... ok we will think about that. I think that part will > probably still be necessary. Because there is an ALSA control > that selects the firmware, then it is necesarry to defer creating > the controls to some work, since you are already holding the > lock. Well, if an ALSA control can trigger the firmware loading, that's already fragile. A firmware loading is a heavy task, which should happen only at probing and/or resuming in general. Do we have other drivers doing the f/w loading triggered by a kctl...? > I guess we could look at adding locked versions of the add > control functions as well if that might be preferred? If the patterns of additional kctls (specific for firmware?) are fixed, we may create all such kctls beforehand and let them inactive unless the corresponding firmware is really loaded, too. thanks, Takashi
