[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f6efb6f9-11ae-e901-f2a5-a4ef94590290@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:32:45 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, sound-open-firmware@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>,
Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] sound: Use -EPROBE_DEFER instead of i915 module
loading.
> I've been working on a small change to keep the workqueue in SOF and
> only move the binding to the probe function to match what snd-hda-intel
> is doing, but I don't know if that is needed?
>
> It was a bit unclear to me based on feedback if I should try to kill the
> workqueue on all drivers (but with no way to test), or keep it around.
My understanding is that we only want to move the binding to the probe
function and leave the workqueue removal for another day - possibly never.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists