Hi Pierre-Louis Thank you for your review > The problem I have is with the following code (not shown with diff) > > if (dai_link->playback_only) > has_capture = 0; > > if (dai_link->capture_only) > has_playback = 0; > > So with this grand unification, all the loops above may make a decision > that could be overridden by these two branches. > > This was not the case before for DPCM, all the 'has_capture' and > 'has_playback' variables were used as a verification of the dai_link > settings with an error thrown e.g. if the dpcm_playback was set without > any DAIs supporting playback. I could understand so far. > Now the dailink settings are used unconditionally. There is one warning > added if there are no settings for a dailink, but we've lost the > detection of a mismatch between dailink and the set of cpu/codec dais > that are part of this dailink. But sorry I could understand this. "There is one warning added if there are no settings for a dailink" By [01/16] patch ? I think no warning is added. Or do you mean by [15/16] patch ? "we've lost the detection of a mismatch between dailink and the set of cpu/codec dais that are part of this dailink" Sorry I couldn't understand about this. Which mismatch detection we lost ?? Concrete sample / code / image is very helpful for me to well understanding. Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Renesas Electronics Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto
