Re: [PATCH 7/9] ASoC: wm8978: stop resume after register restore errors
From: Charles Keepax
Date: Mon Sep 07 2026 - 06:54:33 EST
On Sun, Sep 06, 2026 at 11:43:19AM +0800, Pengpeng Hou wrote:
> wm8978_resume() ignores failures from cache replay, bias restoration and
> PLL re-enable. It can therefore continue publishing later resume steps
> after the codec restore transaction has already failed.
>
> Return the first negative result from those ordered operations. Treat
> the positive "register changed" result from
> snd_soc_component_update_bits() as success, as required by the component
> resume callback contract. The ASoC wrapper reports failures and retains
> best-effort card resume.
>
> The issue was found by our static-analysis tool and manually reviewed.
>
> Fixes: 0d34e91596ef ("ASoC: add a WM8978 codec driver")
> Assisted-by: gpt 5
> Signed-off-by: Pengpeng Hou <hppiscas@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> sound/soc/codecs/wm8978.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8978.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8978.c
> index ad8064bbaaac..241d17d81ecb 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8978.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8978.c
> @@ -940,15 +940,25 @@ static int wm8978_resume(struct snd_soc_component *component)
> {
> struct wm8978_priv *wm8978 = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm = snd_soc_component_to_dapm(component);
> + int ret;
>
> /* Sync reg_cache with the hardware */
> - regcache_sync(wm8978->regmap);
> + ret = regcache_sync(wm8978->regmap);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> - snd_soc_dapm_force_bias_level(dapm, SND_SOC_BIAS_STANDBY);
> + ret = snd_soc_dapm_force_bias_level(dapm, SND_SOC_BIAS_STANDBY);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> - if (wm8978->f_pllout)
> + if (wm8978->f_pllout) {
> /* Switch PLL on */
> - snd_soc_component_update_bits(component, WM8978_POWER_MANAGEMENT_1, 0x20, 0x20);
> + ret = snd_soc_component_update_bits(component,
> + WM8978_POWER_MANAGEMENT_1,
> + 0x20, 0x20);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
What is the thinking on not pushing the bias_level back to off
here?
Thanks,
Charles