On 12/7/2023 2:21 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
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 ?
Yes, thanks!
+ 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
