From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: ASoC: fix PXA SSP port resume Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:00:01 +0000 Message-ID: <20100129140001.GB4768@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <1264674858-27461-1-git-send-email-daniel@caiaq.de> <20100129101307.GA3201@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100129110836.GV28972@buzzloop.caiaq.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA491038FA for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:03 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100129110836.GV28972@buzzloop.caiaq.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Daniel Mack Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Eric Miao , Philipp Zabel List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:08:36PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > And as the next client will indirectly call hw_params() again, the code > there will do the right thing with the invalidated cache. Yeah, I know the code is actually reasonably safe - it just doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies to do the invalidation by programming a random value in there simply on the off chance that at some point in the future that winds up being a valid value and so the same problem recurs. > Restoring the register values from priv->dai_fmt would imply adding code > to do everything what the other bit-fiddling functions do in a reverse > manner. Which is something I'd like to avoid :) Oh, right. I'd forgotten that that was what it was actually storing. > Another idea is to unconditionally save and restore the register set, > and deal with possible side-effects. Not sure what's really better. I think that'd be the the most robust solution with the way things are structured in the driver.