[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87il9ck52l.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:39:14 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...khorst.se>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.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>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sound-open-firmware@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] ASoC: SOF: Intel: Move binding to display driver outside of deferred probe
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 16:26:01 +0200,
Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>
> Ping on this?
Pierre? Does one of your recent patch sets achieves the suggested
thing? Or do we need another rewrite/respin of this series?
Currently it's blocking the merge for 6.6.
Takashi
> On 2023-08-12 10:17, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 16:26:53 +0200,
> > Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/7/23 04:00, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>> Now that we can use -EPROBE_DEFER, it's no longer required to spin off
> >>> the snd_hdac_i915_init into a workqueue.
> >>>
> >>> Use the -EPROBE_DEFER mechanism instead, which must be returned in the
> >>> probe function.
> >>
> >> I don't think this patch is aligned with the previous discussions. What
> >> we agreed on is that snd_hdac_i915_init() would be called from and not
> >> from the workqueue.
> >>
> >> But this patch also moves all codec initialization out of the workqueue.
> >>
> >> I think we need two callbacks for device-specific initilization, one
> >> that is called from the probe function and one from the workqueue,
> >> otherwise we'll have a structure that differs from the snd-hda-intel -
> >> which would be rather silly in terms of support/debug.
> >>
> >> I realize there's quite a bit of surgery involved, and most likely the
> >> SOF folks should provide this patch for you to build on.
> >
> > So this patch looks like the only significant concern in the whole
> > patch set. Can we reach to some agreement for merging to 6.6 in time?
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Takashi
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists