On 8/5/19 11:32 AM, Sanyog Kale wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:33:25AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 8/5/19 4:56 AM, Sanyog Kale wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:40:15PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
When we disable the stream and then call hw_free, two bank switches
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:33:25AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>
> On 8/5/19 4:56 AM, Sanyog Kale wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:40:15PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > When we disable the stream and then call hw_free, two bank switches
> > > will be handled and as a
On 8/5/19 4:56 AM, Sanyog Kale wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:40:15PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
When we disable the stream and then call hw_free, two bank switches
will be handled and as a result we re-enable the stream on hw_free.
I didnt quite get why there will be two bank
Unrelated to this specific patch, but I looked at _sdw_disable_stream()
and I see this there (again, maybe my version is outdated already):
struct sdw_master_runtime *m_rt = NULL;
struct sdw_bus *bus = NULL;
where both those initialisations are redundant. Moreover:
will
Unrelated to this specific patch, but I looked at _sdw_disable_stream()
and I see this there (again, maybe my version is outdated already):
struct sdw_master_runtime *m_rt = NULL;
struct sdw_bus *bus = NULL;
where both those initialisations are redundant. Moreover:
On Thu, Jul
On 7/26/19 5:14 AM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-07-26 01:40, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
- return do_bank_switch(stream);
+ ret = do_bank_switch(stream);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(bus->dev, "Bank switch failed: %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ /* make sure
6 matches
Mail list logo
