On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:39 AM Pierre-Louis Bossart
<pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/8/21 2:12 AM, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > This log message should be a debug message, because it
> > doesn't return directly but continue next loop.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> > index 605acec48971..cd9e919d7b99 100644
> > --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> > @@ -1344,8 +1344,8 @@ static int dpcm_add_paths(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int stream,
> > /* is there a valid BE rtd for this widget */
> > be = dpcm_get_be(card, widget, stream);
> > if (!be) {
> > - dev_err(fe->dev, "ASoC: no BE found for %s\n",
> > - widget->name);
> > + dev_dbg(fe->dev, "ASoC: no BE found for %s\n",
> > + widget->name);
>
> Do we really want to do this?
>
> This error message has historically been the means by which we detect
> that userspace didn't set the right mixers (e.g. on Intel Baytrail) or
> the topology was incorrect. And it's really an error in the sense that
> you will not get audio in or out.
>
> If you demote this to dev_dbg, we'll have to ask every single user who
> reports 'sound is broken' to enable dynamic debug traces. I really don't
> see the benefit, this is a clear case of 'fail big and fail early',
> partly concealing the problem doesn't make it go away but harder to
> diagnose.
Thanks for the explanation, it seems I misunderstood this error message.
Best regards
Wang shengjiu
