On Thu, 02 May 2024 11:21:36 +0200, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
On 02/05/2024 08:34, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 13:17:55 +0200, Simon Trimmer wrote:
@@ -964,6 +1011,14 @@ int cs35l56_hda_common_probe(struct cs35l56_hda *cs35l56, int hid, int id) mutex_init(&cs35l56->base.irq_lock); dev_set_drvdata(cs35l56->base.dev, cs35l56);
- cs35l56->dsp_wq =
create_singlethread_workqueue("cs35l56-dsp");
- if (!cs35l56->dsp_wq) {
ret = -ENOMEM;goto err;- }
Do we really need a dedicated workqueue? In most usages, simple schedule_work*() works fine and is recommended.
On a slow I2C bus with 4 amps this work could take over 2 seconds. That seems too long to be blocking a global system queue. We use a dedicated queue in the ASoC driver.
Also if we queue work on an ordered (single-threaded) system queue the firmware won't be downloaded to multiple amps in parallel, so we don't get the best use of the available bus bandwidth.
OK, that sounds like a sensible argument.
But the patch has no call of a queue destructor. Won't it leak resources?
thanks,
Takashi