On Fri, 05 Nov 2021 09:33:52 +0100,
Yu-Hsuan Hsu wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> 於 2021年11月5日 週五 下午3:32寫道：
> >
> > On Fri, 05 Nov 2021 03:58:46 +0100,
> > Yu-Hsuan Hsu wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Takashi,
> > >
> > > The patch 5af82c81b2c49cfb1cad84d9eb6eab0e3d1c4842(ASoC: DAPM: Fix
> > > missing kctl change notifications) caused the regression on some
> > > ChromeBook.
> > >
> > > The reason is that some drivers check the return value of
> > > snd_soc_dapm_enable_pin, like kabylake_ssp0_trigger(Which caused a
> > > regression). In addition, some SOF drivers may be also affected by
> > > this change(e.g. sof_sdw_max98373.c). Could you help to fix it?
> >
> > Does the patch below fix the problem?
> >
> >
> > Takashi
> >
> >
> > --- a/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c
> > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c
> > @@ -3589,10 +3589,10 @@ int snd_soc_dapm_put_pin_switch(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> > const char *pin = (const char *)kcontrol->private_value;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - if (ucontrol->value.integer.value[0])
> > - ret = snd_soc_dapm_enable_pin(&T->dapm, pin);
> > - else
> > - ret = snd_soc_dapm_disable_pin(&card->dapm, pin);
> > + mutex_lock_nested(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex, SND_SOC_DAPM_CLASS_RUNTIME);
> > +
> > + ret = snd_soc_dapm_set_pin(dapm, pin, !!ucontrol->value.integer.value[0]);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex);
> >
> > snd_soc_dapm_sync(&card->dapm);
> > return ret;
> > @@ -4506,7 +4506,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(snd_soc_dapm_stream_stop);
> > int snd_soc_dapm_enable_pin_unlocked(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> > const char *pin)
> > {
> > - return snd_soc_dapm_set_pin(dapm, pin, 1);
> > + int err = snd_soc_dapm_set_pin(dapm, pin, 1);
> > +
> > + return err < 0 ? err : 0;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(snd_soc_dapm_enable_pin_unlocked);
> >
> > @@ -4527,7 +4529,7 @@ int snd_soc_dapm_enable_pin(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm, const char *pin)
> >
> > mutex_lock_nested(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex, SND_SOC_DAPM_CLASS_RUNTIME);
> >
> > - ret = snd_soc_dapm_set_pin(dapm, pin, 1);
> > + ret = snd_soc_dapm_enable_pin_unlocked(dapm, pin);
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex);
> >
> > @@ -4618,7 +4620,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(snd_soc_dapm_force_enable_pin);
> > int snd_soc_dapm_disable_pin_unlocked(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> > const char *pin)
> > {
> > - return snd_soc_dapm_set_pin(dapm, pin, 0);
> > + int err = snd_soc_dapm_set_pin(dapm, pin, 0);
> > +
> > + return err < 0 ? err : 0;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(snd_soc_dapm_disable_pin_unlocked);
> >
> > @@ -4639,7 +4643,7 @@ int snd_soc_dapm_disable_pin(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> >
> > mutex_lock_nested(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex, SND_SOC_DAPM_CLASS_RUNTIME);
> >
> > - ret = snd_soc_dapm_set_pin(dapm, pin, 0);
> > + ret = snd_soc_dapm_disable_pin_unlocked(dapm, pin);
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex);
> >
>
> No, it's not compilable. There is no variable "dapm" in
> snd_soc_dapm_put_pin_switch.
Doh, I should have at least build-tested before posting :-<
> After changing to
> &card->dapm.card->dapm_mutex, the issue is fixed. Thanks!
OK, good to hear. I'm going to submit the proper patch soon later.
thanks,
Takashi
