[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5hft602ifo.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:15:39 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Cc: tiwai@...e.com, perex@...ex.cz, hui.wang@...onical.com,
kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ALSA: hda: Separate runtime and system suspend
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:12:07 +0100,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 08:46:05 +0100,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > @@ -1103,10 +1115,8 @@ static int azx_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > chip = card->private_data;
> > >
> > > /* enable controller wake up event */
> > > - if (snd_power_get_state(card) == SNDRV_CTL_POWER_D0) {
> > > - azx_writew(chip, WAKEEN, azx_readw(chip, WAKEEN) |
> > > - STATESTS_INT_MASK);
> > > - }
> > > + azx_writew(chip, WAKEEN, azx_readw(chip, WAKEEN) |
> > > + STATESTS_INT_MASK);
> >
> > ... here we should have the check of chip->prepared, and set WAKEEN
> > only when it's false. Otherwise WAKEEN is set up for the system
> > suspend, and it might lead to spurious wakeups. (IOW, checking the
> > flag at resume doesn't help for preventing the spurious wakeup :)
>
> Scratch my comment above; it's the code path only for the runtime
> suspend in your new code, then this cleanup makes sense.
Also, as one more cleanup: from_rt in __azx_runtime_resume() can be
replaced with !chip->prepared flag, so the extra argument can be
dropped.
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists