On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:27:38 +0200, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:22:38AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > On 4/24/17 4:54 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:52:44 +0200, > > >Vinod Koul wrote: > > >> > > >>On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >>>On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:12:14 +0200, > > >>>Vinod Koul wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:00:45AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>>Removing ignore_suspend makes the PM succeeds. But it hits some other > > >>>>>ugly kernel bugs. > > >>>> > > >>>>Okay have you marked .nonatomic = true for the machine DAIs? > > >>> > > >>>Ah that's it. The patch below seems fixing the PM and the nonatomic > > >>>problems. I'm not sure about the nonatomic flag for the compress > > >>>stream, though. > > >> > > >>Well we dont have upstream decoders so it wont be used in this case. > > >> > > >>>Also I fiddled only with FE. Do we need the same flags for BE? The > > >>>others don't look setting like that, so I left so. > > >> > > >>I dont remember if BE needs or not FE should suffice. > > > > > >OK then I leave it as is. > > > > > >When I submit the fix, I should put Cc to stable, and wonder which > > >version we assure the nonatomic ops in SST driver. Did the code base > > >support nonatomic ops from the beginning? > > > > can we take this opportunity to align all drivers? > > The .nonatomic=true is set in all drivers for the BE, except for > > cht_bsw_max98090_ti.c > > ?? > > $ grep nonatomic sound/soc/intel/boards/cht_bsw_max98090_ti.c > .nonatomic = true, > .nonatomic = true, > > > It's either needed for all or not needed for all... > > For the record it is must have for all of the drivers :) > > $ grep -L nonatomic sound/soc/intel/boards/*.c > sound/soc/intel/boards/bdw-rt5677.c > sound/soc/intel/boards/broadwell.c > sound/soc/intel/boards/byt-max98090.c > sound/soc/intel/boards/byt-rt5640.c > sound/soc/intel/boards/haswell.c > sound/soc/intel/boards/mfld_machine.c > > So we should add the remaining one byt-max98090.c as Takashi fixed > byt-rt5640.c one. I will send the patch for this one. Or maybe we should replace these definitions with some macro to expand to the mostly same contents? The difference is just a few callback functions, basically. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
