On 18-12-23, 17:33, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 12/18/23 08:29, Charles Keepax wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 01:58:47PM +0100, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > >>> why not have a single API that does both? First check if it is supported > >>> and then allocate buffers and do the transfer.. What are the advantages > >>> of using this two step process > >> > >> Symmetry is the only thing that comes to my mind. Open - close and send > >> - wait are natural matches, aren't they? > >> > >> We do need a wait(), so bundling open() and send() would be odd. > >> > > > > I agree send->wait->close would be odd, But you just bundle close > > into wait. So the API becomes just send->wait, which seems pretty > > logical. > > Fair enough, send()/wait() would work indeed. > > I guess I wanted to keep the callbacks reasonably small (already 200 > lines for the open), but we can split the 'send' callback into smaller > helpers to keep the code readable. There's no good reason to expose > these smaller helpers to codec drivers. Yes! that would be a better design IMO > > >> But you have a point that the open() is not generic in that it also > >> prepares the DMA buffers for transmission. Maybe it's more natural to > >> follow the traditional open(), hw_params(), hw_free, close() from ALSA. > > > > I think this just makes it worse, you are now adding even more > > calls. The problem I see here is that, open and close (at least to > > me) strongly implies that you can do multiple operations between > > them and unless I have misunderstood something here you can't. > > That's right, the open was not compatible with multiple operations. > Collapsing open/send and wait/close sounds more logical, thanks for the > feedback. Sure -- ~Vinod
