At Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:49:47 +0000,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> The following changes since commit 92dcffb916d309aa01778bf8963a6932e4014d07:
> Linus Torvalds (1):
> Linux 2.6.33-rc5
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound-2.6.git for-2.6.33
>
> The pull request includes a much bigger delta against Linus' tree, I
> merged up since the last batch of fixes that went into his tree didn't
> seem to have shown up on your fix branch for some reason.
>
> Guennadi Liakhovetski (1):
> ASoC: fix a memory-leak in wm8903
Pulled now. Thanks.
But, looking through the change, I wonder whether we don't need to resume
other registers.
static int wm8903_resume(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
...
u16 *reg_cache = codec->reg_cache;
u16 *tmp_cache = kmemdup(reg_cache, sizeof(wm8903_reg_defaults),
GFP_KERNEL);
/* Bring the codec back up to standby first to minimise pop/clicks */
wm8903_set_bias_level(codec, SND_SOC_BIAS_STANDBY);
wm8903_set_bias_level(codec, codec->suspend_bias_level);
/* Sync back everything else */
if (tmp_cache) {
for (i = 2; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wm8903_reg_defaults); i++)
if (tmp_cache[i] != reg_cache[i])
snd_soc_write(codec, i, tmp_cache[i]);
kfree(tmp_cache);
So, basically you restore the value changed between the beginning of
the resume and after the call of wm8903_set_bias_levels(). What if
the value was changed before the resume call? Shouldn't it be like
if (tmp_cache[i] != reg_cache[i] ||
tmp_cache[i] != wm8903_reg_defaults[i])
snd_soc_write(codec, i, tmp_cache[i]);
?? Or maybe I misread the code?
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
