linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: amd: update pm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:11:16 +0000
From:   "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     "kondaveeti, Arungopal" <Arungopal.kondaveeti@....com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "Mukunda, Vijendar" <Vijendar.Mukunda@....com>,
        "Hiregoudar, Basavaraj" <Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com>,
        "Dommati, Sunil-kumar" <Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com>,
        "Prasad, Prasad" <venkataprasad.potturu@....com>,
        "Saba Kareem, Syed" <Syed.SabaKareem@....com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: amd: update pm_runtime enable sequence

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 08:40:15AM -0500, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > On 6/23/2023 4:41 PM, Arun Gopal Kondaveeti wrote:
> > > pm_runtime_allow() is not needed for ACP child platform devices.
> > > Replace pm_runtime_allow() with pm_runtime_mark_last_busy()
> > > & pm_runtime_set_active() in pm_runtime enable sequence for
> > > ACP child platform drivers.
>
> > Can you explain what prompted this?
>
> > Does this fix a particular bug, or is it just to correct
> > things?  If it fixes a particular bug; I think it should be
> > split up across 5 patches (one for each APU) and then
> > appropriate Fixes tags applied for each on the code they're
> > fixing.
>
> I had already gone ahead and applied this before your mail - it seemed
> better to get it into 6.5 than leave it waiting longer.  If there's a
> need for backports that can be handled through the stable process.

Sounds good, thanks!