From: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mach-shmobile: tidyup: sound card detection order
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:11:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120529091129.GA26043@verge.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mx4rmqzd.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:40:08AM -0700, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> Hi Simon, Paul
>
> Thank you for checking patch
>
> > > > Is the problem that a previous patch altered the order of the
> > > > ALSA index of the sound cards? And this patch restores the previous order?
> > > >
> > > > If so, I wonder if this is really necessary as is should
> > > > be possible to set the index using a module parameter if one
> > > > is relying on it.
> > > >
> > > One would expect so. What happens if the ALSA drivers are built as
> > > modules and inserted in random order today? If you require persistent
> > > assignment then you will have to deal with it either through module
> > > parameters or udev.
> >
> > I'm unsure if that was a rhetorical question or not,
> > but I believe the answer is yes.
>
> Yes.
> The ALSA card list order was same as inserted alsa-module
> order if it was built as module.
> This is very OK.
> And I'm not sure ALSA already has index specification method.
> Sorry for my confusion.
> My problem was deferred probe order on built-in.
I was under the impression that the index could be set for a built-in too.
But poking around in /sys on an armadillo board, that seems not to be the
case.
>
> Current my issue is...
> normal probe of ALSA-card.0 -> requests probe deferral
> normal probe of ALSA-card.1 -> requests probe deferral
> ...
> deferred-probe of ALSA-card.1 <= order changed
> deferred-probe of ALSA-card.0 <= order changed
>
> Now, I re-checked and noticed that
> the main issue was additional method for deferred_probe_pending_list on dd.c.
>
> Below patch solved this issue.
> What do you think this ?
It seems reasonable to expect things to be appended not prepended,
so I think your patch makes some sense.
I'm not entirely sure it makes any sense to be relying on the
order of cards being initialised. But I guess the order of
initialisation is relied on in other places too.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-29 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-29 6:38 [PATCH] ARM: mach-shmobile: tidyup: sound card detection order Kuninori Morimoto
2012-05-29 6:46 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-29 7:04 ` Paul Mundt
2012-05-29 7:33 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-29 7:40 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-05-29 9:11 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2012-05-30 0:25 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-05-30 1:09 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-05-30 1:30 ` Simon Horman
2012-05-30 1:34 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-05-30 1:46 ` [PATCH] driver core: fixup reversed deferred probe order Kuninori Morimoto
2012-06-12 23:17 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-06-13 0:03 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-06-13 0:33 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-07-09 21:56 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120529091129.GA26043@verge.net.au \
--to=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox