> -----Original Message-----
> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 10:53 AM
> To: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Simon Trimmer <simont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; tiwai@xxxxxxxx; linux-
> sound@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: hda: cs35l56: Perform firmware download in the
> background
>
> On Thu, 02 May 2024 11:21:36 +0200,
> Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> >
> > On 02/05/2024 08:34, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01 May 2024 13:17:55 +0200,
> > > Simon Trimmer wrote:
> > >> @@ -964,6 +1011,14 @@ int cs35l56_hda_common_probe(struct
> cs35l56_hda *cs35l56, int hid, int id)
> > >> mutex_init(&cs35l56->base.irq_lock);
> > >> dev_set_drvdata(cs35l56->base.dev, cs35l56);
> > >> + cs35l56->dsp_wq =
> > >> create_singlethread_workqueue("cs35l56-dsp");
> > >> + if (!cs35l56->dsp_wq) {
> > >> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > >> + goto err;
> > >> + }
> > >
> > > Do we really need a dedicated workqueue? In most usages, simple
> > > schedule_work*() works fine and is recommended.
> > >
> >
> > On a slow I2C bus with 4 amps this work could take over 2 seconds.
> > That seems too long to be blocking a global system queue. We use a
> > dedicated queue in the ASoC driver.
> >
> > Also if we queue work on an ordered (single-threaded) system queue the
> > firmware won't be downloaded to multiple amps in parallel, so we don't
> > get the best use of the available bus bandwidth.
>
> OK, that sounds like a sensible argument.
>
> But the patch has no call of a queue destructor. Won't it leak
> resources?
Oops that's a good spot - I missed that and will send a v2
Cheers,
-Simon
