Re: [PATCH 3/3] Sound (HDA Intel): Restore PCI configuration space with interrupts off

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

 



At Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:38:56 +0100,
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, 11 of December 2008, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:03:16 +0100,
> > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, 11 of December 2008, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > At Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:47:56 +0100,
> > > > I wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > At Sat, 6 Dec 2008 20:45:35 -0800,
> > > > > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 6, 2008 6:09 am Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Subject: Sound (HDA Intel): Restore PCI configuration space with interrupts
> > > > > > > off
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Move the restoration of the standard PCI configuration registers
> > > > > > > in the snd_hda_intel driver to a ->resume_early() callback executed
> > > > > > > with interrupts disabled, since doing that with interrupts enabled
> > > > > > > may lead to problems in some cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patch addresses the regression from 2.6.26 tracked as
> > > > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12121 .
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Since I only applied 1 and 2 you'll need to send this one through Takashi.
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, I merged it to for-next branch now.
> > > > > It should appear in the linux-next tree of tomorrow.
> > > > 
> > > > There is no build errors at least on linux-next, but I guess the
> > > > testing about PM has been rarely done on linux-next kernel...
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, Rafael, is this particular patch (against hda_intel.c) works in
> > > > general or dependent on other two patches?
> > > 
> > > It should be safe without the other patches too.
> > 
> > OK, but this alone doesn't make much sense without others, right?
> > 
> > I'm asking this because I'm not pretty sure how this should be handled.
> > Certainly it must be in 2.6.29, but about for 2.6.28...
> 
> Well, I think 2.6.29 would be fine.

OK, thanks.
If any, this could be pushed later from stable tree, too.


Takashi
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux