4 Oct
2011
4 Oct
'11
5:04 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 07:44:22AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
While reading the code, I don't understand why we need to do (in wm8971_resume):
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wm8971_reg); i++) { if (i + 1 == WM8971_RESET) continue;
My understanding is that we want to avoid writing to WM8971_RESET on resume.
Yeah, this looks like a leftover from some older code which omitted register zero from the cache for some small memory savings. Now things are using the standard cache code rather than custom cache code this is buggy.
Applied, thanks.