Re: [PATCH] AWOOGA: Revert "ALSA: hda: Make use of core codec functions to sync power state"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2/13/2018 2:00 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:26:32 +0100,
Saarinen, Jani wrote:
Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: Takashi Iwai [mailto:tiwai@xxxxxxx]
Sent: tiistai 13. helmikuuta 2018 10.14
To: Saarinen, Jani <jani.saarinen@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Kumar, Abhijeet <abhijeet.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re:  [PATCH] AWOOGA: Revert "ALSA: hda: Make use of core
codec functions to sync power state"

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:34:40 +0100,
Saarinen, Jani wrote:
HI,
-----Original Message-----
From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Takashi Iwai
Sent: tiistai 13. helmikuuta 2018 7.11
To: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kumar, Abhijeet
<abhijeet.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re:  [PATCH] AWOOGA: Revert "ALSA: hda: Make use
of core codec functions to sync power state"

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:29:53 +0100,
Chris Wilson wrote:
This reverts commit 3b5b899ca67db07a4c4825911072221f99e157e2.

Fixes: 3b5b899ca67d ("ALSA: hda: Make use of core codec functions
to sync power state")
Cc: Abhijeet Kumar <abhijeet.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
Did the patch break anything?
I don't understand it without any real context...
Yes. See resutls from link what is fixed by reverting:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/38097/
Test pm_rpm:
         Subgroup basic-pci-d3-state:
                 fail       -> PASS       (fi-hsw-4770)
                 fail       -> PASS       (fi-bdw-5557u)
         Subgroup basic-rte:
                 fail       -> PASS       (fi-hsw-4770)
                 fail       -> PASS       (fi-bdw-5557u)
Could you investigate why does the revert fix?
Maybe you instead.
Once when a proper bug report is sent to us upstream :)

Two functions are almost identical.  The difference is that the new one has a
counter and quit at 500 iteration, and it has a msleep(200) at the error exit.  But
both shouldn't matter for the normal operation...

FWIW, below is the patch to make the new function identical with the original
function.  Does it change the behavior?

Just send it for ml so that CI can test.
I guess Abhijeet can manage it better.  It's Intel stuff, after all.
I would make those changes and share it to ml.

Takashi

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux