On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 06:08:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/alsa/mixer-test.c
> @@ -668,6 +668,10 @@ static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
> ksft_print_msg("%s read and written values differ\n",
>
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:57:37 +0200,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 05:37:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > @@ -616,6 +616,10 @@ static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
> > if (!snd_ctl_elem_info_is_readable(ctl->info))
> > return err;
> >
> > + /*
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 05:37:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> @@ -616,6 +616,10 @@ static int write_and_verify(struct ctl_data *ctl,
> if (!snd_ctl_elem_info_is_readable(ctl->info))
> return err;
>
> + /* Skip the verification for volatile controls, too */
> + if (s
On 14. 06. 24 17:37, Takashi Iwai wrote:
The control elements with volatile flag don't guarantee that the
written values are actually saved for the next reads, hence we can't
verify the written values reliably. Skip the verification after write
tests for those volatile controls for avoiding conf
The control elements with volatile flag don't guarantee that the
written values are actually saved for the next reads, hence we can't
verify the written values reliably. Skip the verification after write
tests for those volatile controls for avoiding confusion.
Reported-by: Paul Menzel
Closes:
