Hi Sridharan
Thank you for reviewing
> @@ -1319,18 +1219,11 @@ static int soc_pcm_trigger_stop(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int
> cmd)
> {
> struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> struct snd_soc_component *component;
> - struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai;
> - struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai;
> + struct snd_soc_dai *dai;
> int i, ret;
>
> - for_each_rtd_codec_dais(rtd, i, codec_dai) {
> - ret = snd_soc_dai_trigger(codec_dai, substream, cmd);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> - }
> -
> - for_each_rtd_cpu_dais(rtd, i, cpu_dai) {
> - ret = snd_soc_dai_trigger(cpu_dai, substream, cmd);
> + for_each_rtd_dais(rtd, i, dai) {
>
> Morimoto-san,
>
> We are switching the order in which the codec dais and cpu dais are stopped here with this new macro
> no. Does it make a difference? The same comment applies to some other changes as well.
>
> If the trigger_start() started cpu dais first and then codec dais, do we need to stop in the reverse
> order?
I'm sorry but I didn't mention detail.
Yes, it exchanged the order.
But I'm thinking that the current order was
implemented by just a coincidence,
and I'm hoping hardware doesn't matter order of same layer (= DAI).
Maybe Mark answered already.
https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/20200225014039.GA21366@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
But if the order was important for some platform,
we need/should consider "order", like for_each_comp_order().
for_each_comp_order(order) {
for_each_rtd_dais(rtd, i, dai, order) {
...
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
