Quoting Kumar, Abhijeet (2018-02-14 04:53:57)
>
>
> On 2/14/2018 9:36 AM, abhijeet.kumar@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> From: Abhijeet Kumar <abhijeet.kumar@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c b/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c
> index 8c1b07e300a8..377d5719b4cd 100644
> --- a/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c
> +++ b/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c
> @@ -2714,7 +2714,7 @@ static unsigned int hda_sync_power_state(struct hda_codec *codec,
> int count;
>
> for (count = 0;count < 500; count++) {
> - state = snd_hda_codec_read(codec, fg, 0,
> + state = snd_hdac_codec_read(&codec->core, fg, 0,
> AC_VERB_GET_POWER_STATE, 0);
> if (state & AC_PWRST_ERROR){
> msleep(20);
>
>
> Both tests are passing on hsw and bdw devices.I can conclude that none of my
> changes
Where did you run this against CI? (Due to the nature of patchwork it
will not have picked this up as a new revision.)
> in "ALSA: hda: Make use of core codec functions to sync power state" is "
> directly" causing the regression.
> As this patch series changes the previously defined sync function similar to
> the latest one (the one defined
> in the defaulter patch).
If you have no answer, we will apply the revert to our CI so that we do
not lose coverage.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
