[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A1F48F8@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:34:45 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: "lrg@...com" <lrg@...com>, "perex@...ex.cz" <perex@...ex.cz>,
"tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Fix the unpaired runtime_get/put cases
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:51 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: lrg@...com; perex@...ex.cz; tiwai@...e.de; alsa-devel@...a-project.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Fix the unpaired runtime_get/put cases
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:37:26AM +0000, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, is it useful to add one warning there for that case?
> > After all, in probing, set the bias to _STANDBY even idle_bias_off == 1, and
> calling get_runtime_sync(), it
> > will let the code more obscure. So giving a warning there to indicate the
> driver:
> > it is not suggested that in probing, set the bias to _STANDBY even
> idle_bias_off == 1.
>
> Probably, send a patch please. Like I say it is possible to start off
> in _STANDBY providing the driver grabs the runtime PM reference too but
> I can't think of any reason for doing that so the warning seems sensible.
The patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/20/506 has been sent for giving warning
in that case. Thanks your reviewing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists