| Message ID | 1551706274-22571-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | c342febcde452f817cbd3896dc40953ab17c309d |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ASoC: soc-core: Fix probe deferral following prelink failure | expand |
Hi Mark, On 04/03/2019 13:31, Jon Hunter wrote: > From: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> > > Commit 78a24e10cd94 ("ASoC: soc-core: clear platform pointers on error") > re-worked the clean-up of any platform pointers that may have been > initialised by the function snd_soc_init_platform(). This commit missed > one error path where if any of the prelinks for a soundcard failed to > initialise, then these platform pointers would not be cleaned-up. This > then prevents the soundcard from being initialised following a probe > deferral when any of the soundcard prelinks cannot be found. > > Fix this by ensuring that soc_cleanup_platform() is called when > initialising the soundcard prelinks fails. > > Fixes: 78a24e10cd94 ("ASoC: soc-core: clear platform pointers on error") > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> FYI, I am seeing that the deferral of soundcards failing with v5.1-rc3 because the above has not been merged yet. Just wanted to let you know in case this one was not marked for v5.1. Cheers Jon
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:22:09PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > FYI, I am seeing that the deferral of soundcards failing with v5.1-rc3 > because the above has not been merged yet. Just wanted to let you know > in case this one was not marked for v5.1. I don't have this patch at all AFAICT.
On 02/04/2019 05:35, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:22:09PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > >> FYI, I am seeing that the deferral of soundcards failing with v5.1-rc3 >> because the above has not been merged yet. Just wanted to let you know >> in case this one was not marked for v5.1. > > I don't have this patch at all AFAICT. That's odd. It is definitely in -next and I did receive an 'applied' email from you [0]. So looks like something went wrong here. Can we get this into v5.1? Cheers Jon [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/4/637
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 09:52:15AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 02/04/2019 05:35, Mark Brown wrote: > > I don't have this patch at all AFAICT. > That's odd. It is definitely in -next and I did receive an 'applied' > email from you [0]. So looks like something went wrong here. Can we get > this into v5.1? Oh, if I've applied that's why I don't have it any more. Indeed it's applied in my 5.1 branch so I don't know what you're expecting here?
On 02/04/2019 10:19, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 09:52:15AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 02/04/2019 05:35, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> I don't have this patch at all AFAICT. > >> That's odd. It is definitely in -next and I did receive an 'applied' >> email from you [0]. So looks like something went wrong here. Can we get >> this into v5.1? > > Oh, if I've applied that's why I don't have it any more. Indeed it's > applied in my 5.1 branch so I don't know what you're expecting here? Well I still don't see it in the mainline branch and some boards are still failing to register soundcards with v5.1-rc3 because this is missing. So I am wondering what has happened to the change. It seems it has been dropped. Cheers Jon
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:30:34AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 02/04/2019 10:19, Mark Brown wrote: > > Oh, if I've applied that's why I don't have it any more. Indeed it's > > applied in my 5.1 branch so I don't know what you're expecting here? > Well I still don't see it in the mainline branch and some boards are > still failing to register soundcards with v5.1-rc3 because this is > missing. So I am wondering what has happened to the change. It seems it > has been dropped. You can check to see what's in my tree by looking at it directly or at -next.
On 02/04/2019 10:31, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:30:34AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 02/04/2019 10:19, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Oh, if I've applied that's why I don't have it any more. Indeed it's >>> applied in my 5.1 branch so I don't know what you're expecting here? > >> Well I still don't see it in the mainline branch and some boards are >> still failing to register soundcards with v5.1-rc3 because this is >> missing. So I am wondering what has happened to the change. It seems it >> has been dropped. > > You can check to see what's in my tree by looking at it directly or at > -next. Right I see it in -next. Sorry but what I am asking is if you are planning to send as a fix for v5.1? Maybe you have not sent out the fixes yet for v5.1 and so wanted to check. Cheers Jon
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:44:34AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > Right I see it in -next. Sorry but what I am asking is if you are > planning to send as a fix for v5.1? Maybe you have not sent out the > fixes yet for v5.1 and so wanted to check. It is in my for-5.1 branch so I am intending to send it for v5.1. Like many maintainers I have separate branches in my tree and in -next for things that are intended for the next merge window and things that are intended to be sent sooner, in my case I have both for-linus and for-next branches, plus both topic and numberd for-x.y branches which feed into those.
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index 93d316d5bf8e..5a5764dba147 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -2797,6 +2797,7 @@ int snd_soc_register_card(struct snd_soc_card *card) ret = soc_init_dai_link(card, link); if (ret) { + soc_cleanup_platform(card); dev_err(card->dev, "ASoC: failed to init link %s\n", link->name); mutex_unlock(&client_mutex);