On 17/02/2022 00:23, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
Hi Richard
Thank you for your patch.
One comment from me.
struct asoc_simple_dai {
const char *name;
unsigned int sysclk;
@@ -26,6 +31,9 @@ struct asoc_simple_dai {
unsigned int rx_slot_mask;
struct clk *clk;
bool clk_fixed;
+ struct asoc_simple_tdm_width_map *tdm_width_map;
+ int n_tdm_widths;
+ struct snd_soc_dai *dai;
};
(snip)
(snip)
(snip)
@@ -386,6 +479,8 @@ static int asoc_simple_init_dai(struct snd_soc_dai *dai,
if (!simple_dai)
return 0;
+ simple_dai->dai = dai;
Indeed the relationship between asoc_simple_dai and snd_soc_dai are
very mystery, and current utils is using confusable naming.
We want to have some better solution about there.
Having snd_soc_dai pointer inside asoc_simple_dai itself is not bad idea.
But we can get snd_soc_dai pointer without it.
Please check asoc_simple_dai_init().
Not tested, but we can replace the code like this ?
=> struct snd_soc_dai *dai;
for_each_prop_dai_codec(props, i, pdai) {
=> dai = asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, i);
ret = asoc_simple_set_tdm(dai, pdai, params);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
}
I first thought about doing it like that. But I was not sure whether it
is safe to assume [i] is the same entry for both arrays. If it is ok,
then I can use that and do not need to add the snd_soc_dai * to struct
asoc_simple_dai.
I will look at this and send a V2 set if it is ok.
