[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201130124617.GC4756@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:46:17 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <srivasam@...eaurora.org>
Cc: agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, plai@...eaurora.org, bgoswami@...eaurora.org,
perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
rohitkr@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
V Sujith Kumar Reddy <vsujithk@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] Partially revert ASoC: qcom: Fix enabling BCLK
and LRCLK in LPAIF invalid state
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:29:18AM +0530, Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu wrote:
> This reverts part of commit b1824968221c
> ("ASoC: qcom: Fix enabling BCLK and LRCLK in LPAIF invalid state")
>
> To identify LPAIF invalid state after device suspend and resume,
> made I2S and DMA control registers not volatile, which is not necessary.
> Instead invalid reg state can be handled with regcache APIs.
> The BCLK ref count is necessary to enable clock only it's in disable state.
Part of this commit message says that the problem was making the registers
non-volatile but both the change and the rest of the commit message say
that the issue was that the registers were made volatile. I'm also
still unclear as to what the issue is either way - how does reading the
state of the registers from the hardware instead of the cache affect
things?
Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
subsystem, this makes it easier for people to identify relevant patches.
Look at what existing commits in the area you're changing are doing and
make sure your subject lines visually resemble what they're doing.
There's no need to resubmit to fix this alone.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists