Hi Pierre-Louis, again > > 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. Hmm... above 2 branches are used for DPCM too before. > > 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. Does this mean, for example you want to have warning/error by dpcm_playback flag if you are thinking it can use playback , but FE or BE playback was not valid ? If so, yes indeed this patch removes such flags. But I wonder why you want to get it in case of DPCM only ? I can understand if all case want to have it. Then, I think we can check _only for this purpose too ? (A) if dai_link has playback_only -> it should have has_playback (B) if dai_link has capture_only -> it should have has_capture (C) if dai_link don't have both xxx_only -> it should have both has_xxx I think we already have (A)(B) check. We want to add (C) check ? If my understanding was correct, the things dpcm_xxx flag can do is also can do by xxx_only flag. But dpcm_xxx flag is used only DPCM, but xxx_only flag is used on all cases. Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Renesas Electronics Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto
