Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] ASoC: soc-pcm.c: cleanup soc_get_playback_capture()

[Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pierre-Louis, again

> > The problem I have is with the following code (not shown with diff)
> > 
> > 	if (dai_link->playback_only)
> > 		has_capture = 0;
> > 
> > 	if (dai_link->capture_only)
> > 		has_playback = 0;
> > 
> > So with this grand unification, all the loops above may make a decision
> > that could be overridden by these two branches.
> > 
> > This was not the case before for DPCM, all the 'has_capture' and
> > 'has_playback' variables were used as a verification of the dai_link
> > settings with an error thrown e.g. if the dpcm_playback was set without
> > any DAIs supporting playback.

Hmm... above 2 branches are used for DPCM too before.

> > Now the dailink settings are used unconditionally. There is one warning
> > added if there are no settings for a dailink, but we've lost the
> > detection of a mismatch between dailink and the set of cpu/codec dais
> > that are part of this dailink.

Does this mean, for example you want to have warning/error by dpcm_playback
flag if you are thinking it can use playback , but FE or BE playback was
not valid ?

If so, yes indeed this patch removes such flags.
But I wonder why you want to get it in case of DPCM only ?
I can understand if all case want to have it.

Then, I think we can check _only for this purpose too ?

(A)	if dai_link has playback_only        -> it should have has_playback
(B)	if dai_link has capture_only         -> it should have has_capture
(C)	if dai_link don't have both xxx_only -> it should have both has_xxx

I think we already have (A)(B) check. We want to add (C) check ?

If my understanding was correct, the things dpcm_xxx flag can do is also
can do by xxx_only flag. But dpcm_xxx flag is used only DPCM, but xxx_only
flag is used on all cases.

Thank you for your help !!

Best regards
---
Renesas Electronics
Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto