[v7] sound: Use -EPROBE_DEFER instead of i915 module loading.

[PATCH v7 01/13] ASoC: SOF: core: Ensure sof_ops_free() is still called when probe never ran.

Posted by Maarten Lankhorst 2 years, 2 months ago

In an effort to not call sof_ops_free twice, we stopped running it when
probe was aborted.

Check the result of cancel_work_sync to see if this was the case.

Fixes: 31bb7bd9ffee ("ASoC: SOF: core: Only call sof_ops_free() on remove if the probe was successful")
Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 sound/soc/sof/core.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/core.c b/sound/soc/sof/core.c
index 2d1616b81485c..0938b259f7034 100644
--- a/sound/soc/sof/core.c
+++ b/sound/soc/sof/core.c
@@ -459,9 +459,10 @@ int snd_sof_device_remove(struct device *dev)
 	struct snd_sof_dev *sdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 	struct snd_sof_pdata *pdata = sdev->pdata;
 	int ret;
+	bool aborted = false;
 
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SND_SOC_SOF_PROBE_WORK_QUEUE))
-		cancel_work_sync(&sdev->probe_work);
+		aborted = cancel_work_sync(&sdev->probe_work);
 
 	/*
 	 * Unregister any registered client device first before IPC and debugfs
@@ -487,6 +488,9 @@ int snd_sof_device_remove(struct device *dev)
 		snd_sof_free_debug(sdev);
 		snd_sof_remove(sdev);
 		sof_ops_free(sdev);
+	} else if (aborted) {
+		/* probe_work never ran */
+		sof_ops_free(sdev);
 	}
 
 	/* release firmware */
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH v7 01/13] ASoC: SOF: core: Ensure sof_ops_free() is still called when probe never ran.

Posted by Takashi Iwai 2 years, 2 months ago

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:54:25 +0200,
Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> 
> In an effort to not call sof_ops_free twice, we stopped running it when
> probe was aborted.
> 
> Check the result of cancel_work_sync to see if this was the case.
> 
> Fixes: 31bb7bd9ffee ("ASoC: SOF: core: Only call sof_ops_free() on remove if the probe was successful")
> Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

Your Signed-off-by tag is missing.

Could you resubmit?


thanks,

Takashi

> ---
>  sound/soc/sof/core.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/core.c b/sound/soc/sof/core.c
> index 2d1616b81485c..0938b259f7034 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/sof/core.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/sof/core.c
> @@ -459,9 +459,10 @@ int snd_sof_device_remove(struct device *dev)
>  	struct snd_sof_dev *sdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>  	struct snd_sof_pdata *pdata = sdev->pdata;
>  	int ret;
> +	bool aborted = false;
>  
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SND_SOC_SOF_PROBE_WORK_QUEUE))
> -		cancel_work_sync(&sdev->probe_work);
> +		aborted = cancel_work_sync(&sdev->probe_work);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Unregister any registered client device first before IPC and debugfs
> @@ -487,6 +488,9 @@ int snd_sof_device_remove(struct device *dev)
>  		snd_sof_free_debug(sdev);
>  		snd_sof_remove(sdev);
>  		sof_ops_free(sdev);
> +	} else if (aborted) {
> +		/* probe_work never ran */
> +		sof_ops_free(sdev);
>  	}
>  
>  	/* release firmware */
> -- 
> 2.39.2
>

Re: [PATCH v7 01/13] ASoC: SOF: core: Ensure sof_ops_free() is still called when probe never ran.

Posted by Maarten Lankhorst 2 years, 2 months ago

Hey,

Den 2023-10-13 kl. 11:15, skrev Takashi Iwai:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:54:25 +0200,
> Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> In an effort to not call sof_ops_free twice, we stopped running it when
>> probe was aborted.
>>
>> Check the result of cancel_work_sync to see if this was the case.
>>
>> Fixes: 31bb7bd9ffee ("ASoC: SOF: core: Only call sof_ops_free() on remove if the probe was successful")
>> Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Your Signed-off-by tag is missing.
>
> Could you resubmit?
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi

I missed this email apparently.

Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>

Is this enough for the tooling, or do you need an actual resubmit?

Cheers,
~Maarten

>
>> ---
>>   sound/soc/sof/core.c | 6 +++++-
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/core.c b/sound/soc/sof/core.c
>> index 2d1616b81485c..0938b259f7034 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/sof/core.c
>> +++ b/sound/soc/sof/core.c
>> @@ -459,9 +459,10 @@ int snd_sof_device_remove(struct device *dev)
>>   	struct snd_sof_dev *sdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>   	struct snd_sof_pdata *pdata = sdev->pdata;
>>   	int ret;
>> +	bool aborted = false;
>>   
>>   	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SND_SOC_SOF_PROBE_WORK_QUEUE))
>> -		cancel_work_sync(&sdev->probe_work);
>> +		aborted = cancel_work_sync(&sdev->probe_work);
>>   
>>   	/*
>>   	 * Unregister any registered client device first before IPC and debugfs
>> @@ -487,6 +488,9 @@ int snd_sof_device_remove(struct device *dev)
>>   		snd_sof_free_debug(sdev);
>>   		snd_sof_remove(sdev);
>>   		sof_ops_free(sdev);
>> +	} else if (aborted) {
>> +		/* probe_work never ran */
>> +		sof_ops_free(sdev);
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	/* release firmware */
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>>

Re: [PATCH v7 01/13] ASoC: SOF: core: Ensure sof_ops_free() is still called when probe never ran.

Posted by Takashi Iwai 2 years, 2 months ago

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:02:55 +0200,
Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> Den 2023-10-13 kl. 11:15, skrev Takashi Iwai:
> > On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:54:25 +0200,
> > Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> In an effort to not call sof_ops_free twice, we stopped running it when
> >> probe was aborted.
> >> 
> >> Check the result of cancel_work_sync to see if this was the case.
> >> 
> >> Fixes: 31bb7bd9ffee ("ASoC: SOF: core: Only call sof_ops_free() on remove if the probe was successful")
> >> Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
> >> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> > Your Signed-off-by tag is missing.
> > 
> > Could you resubmit?
> > 
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > Takashi
> 
> I missed this email apparently.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Is this enough for the tooling, or do you need an actual resubmit?

That's enough, and I applied the series to for-next branch now.


thanks,

Takashi