Hi Amadeusz
Thank you for your feedback
> > --- a/include/sound/soc.h
> > +++ b/include/sound/soc.h
> > @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ snd_soc_link_to_platform(struct snd_soc_dai_link *link, int n) {
> > #define COMP_PLATFORM(_name) { .name = _name }
> > #define COMP_AUX(_name) { .name = _name }
> > #define COMP_CODEC_CONF(_name) { .name = _name }
> > -#define COMP_DUMMY() { .name = "snd-soc-dummy", .dai_name = "snd-soc-dummy-dai", }
> > +#define COMP_DUMMY() /* see snd_soc_fill_dummy_dai() */
>
> Isn't it effectively making COMP_DUMMY same as COMP_EMPTY, or am I not
> seeing something? I guess next step could be to just remove all
> COMP_DUMMY and replace them with COMP_EMPTY to avoid two definitions
> which are same thing?
It is a little bit macro magic
COMP_EMPTY()
static struct snd_soc_dai_link_component name[] = {{ }},
^^^
COMP_DUMMY()
static struct snd_soc_dai_link_component name[] = { },
^^^
EMPTY case will be 1 element array, DUMMY case will be 0 element array.
So, EMPTY case has empty element, and is not a special/strange array.
But DUMMY case, it has pointer but 0 size array, very special/strange.
This patch making this special/strange array on purpose, and convert it
to asoc_dummy_dlc() on soc-core.c
Is this good answer for you ?
> > + if (dai_link->num_platforms == 0 && dai_link->platforms) {
> > + dev_warn(card->dev, "platform don't need dummy Component/DAI\n");
>
> I would just replace above print with code comment, no need to spam dmesg.
OK, will fix in v2
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Renesas Electronics
Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto
