[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14691a05-cb29-a030-0e72-eca900d8eb7e@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 10:45:53 +0530
From: Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>
To: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
CC: <broonie@...nel.org>, <perex@...ex.cz>, <tiwai@...e.com>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
<thierry.reding@...il.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <sharadg@...dia.com>,
<mkumard@...dia.com>, <viswanathl@...dia.com>,
<rlokhande@...dia.com>, <dramesh@...dia.com>,
<atalambedu@...dia.com>, <nwartikar@...dia.com>,
<swarren@...dia.com>, <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ASoC: audio-graph: Identify 'no_pcm' DAI links for
DPCM
Hi Morimoto-san,
> (snip)
>> I tried testing this with LOCKDEP config enabled at my end.
>> It seems I don't see warning originated from above function.
>> Are you suggesting that, in general, snd_soc_find_dai()
>> should be called with client_mutex held?
> Hmm ? strange...
Yes indeed. For saftely I will follow the same as other callers are doing.
...
> Yes, I'm posting fixup patch.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11719919/
Just curious that why snd_soc_find_dai() itself cannot be protected,
instead of leaving this to callers.
Thanks,
Sameer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists