[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <585925F6-8262-41BB-A21D-EBCE6EBF9B5D@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:24:32 +0800
From: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
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 Oct 27, 2020, at 16:15, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
Ok, will send v3 to address it.
Kai-Heng
>
>
> Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists