Hi Cezary,
diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-pcm.c
b/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-pcm.c
index a46a6baa1c3f..4b3a89cf20e7 100644
--- a/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-pcm.c
+++ b/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-pcm.c
@@ -246,5 +246,6 @@ int hda_dsp_pcm_close(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev,
/* unbinding pcm substream to hda stream */
substream->runtime->private_data = NULL;
+ hstream->substream = NULL;
return 0;
}
Humm, yes we should clean this, but wondering if the close() operation
is the right place. Doing this is hda_dsp_stream_hw_free() sounds more
logical to me?
Ain't hda-pcm.c the best place for it as "hstream->substream =
substream" happens there too? If the cleanup is to be done in
_hw_free(), then I'd expect the same to happen to the original
assignments. Doubt we want to do the later so.. _close() for the win?
In general the existing hstream->substream initialization looks kinda
disconnected from the actual stream assignment code - _stream_get() - as
if the duties of the state machine were shared.
I am having difficulties interpreting your answer, i.e. I don't know
what the last sentence refers to.
Currently open() and close() are perfectly symmetrical, I don't really
see why you'd want to change and add an imbalanced set of operations,
unless you moved
hstream->substream = substream;
to the open() instead of hw_params().
Or alternatively add a hw_free() in hda-pcm.c to mirror what's done in
hw_params.
