Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:42:14 -0400 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 072/185] ALSA: hda: Add codec on bus address table lately |
| |
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:45PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: >On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:30:25 +0200, >Sasha Levin wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> >On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 20:47:30 +0200, >> >Sasha Levin wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> >> >> >> >> [ Upstream commit ee5f85d9290fe25d460bd320b7fe073075d72d33 ] >> >> >> >> The call of snd_hdac_bus_add_device() is needed only for registering >> >> the codec onto the bus caddr_tbl[] that is referred essentially only >> >> in the unsol event handler. That is, the reason of this call and the >> >> release by the counter-part function snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() is >> >> just to assure that the unsol event gets notified to the codec. >> >> >> >> But the current implementation of the unsol notification wouldn't work >> >> properly when the codec is still in a premature init state. So this >> >> patch tries to work around it by delaying the caddr_tbl[] registration >> >> at the point of snd_hdac_device_register(). >> >> >> >> Also, the order of snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() and device_del() calls >> >> are shuffled to make sure that the unsol event is masked before >> >> deleting the device. >> >> >> >> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204565 >> >> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> >> > >> >The upstream commit was reverted later by 246bb4aaa4f4, which has even >> >Fixes tag pointing this. So please drop this. >> >> I'll drop it, thank you. >> >> >BTW, this is the second time AUTOSEL overlooked the existing revert. >> >I'm afraid something is missing in the check. >> >> Usually it's the case that I check for fixes/reverts once I compile the >> series, and again right before I queue it up to a stable tree. In >> between fixes and reverts tend to sneak in just like in this case. >> >> In general, I also check the -rcs for fixes and reverts during their >> review window, so while sometimes we send out mails with patches that >> have a fix or revert upstream, they rarely make it into a released >> stable kernel. > >IMO, it'd be great if you have some check before sending for reviews. >The Fixes tag chain can be parsed relatively easily, after all.
True. I'll update my scripts to do that.
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |