On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:08:36PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > And as the next client will indirectly call hw_params() again, the code > there will do the right thing with the invalidated cache. Yeah, I know the code is actually reasonably safe - it just doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies to do the invalidation by programming a random value in there simply on the off chance that at some point in the future that winds up being a valid value and so the same problem recurs. > Restoring the register values from priv->dai_fmt would imply adding code > to do everything what the other bit-fiddling functions do in a reverse > manner. Which is something I'd like to avoid :) Oh, right. I'd forgotten that that was what it was actually storing. > Another idea is to unconditionally save and restore the register set, > and deal with possible side-effects. Not sure what's really better. I think that'd be the the most robust solution with the way things are structured in the driver. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
