Hi Pierre-Louis
Thank you for your feedback.
I could understand your comment 80%, but not yet 100%
> With the older code, if the dpcm_playback was set for the dailink but
> there isn't any dai connected to support playback, an error was thrown.
>
> With the new code, if playback_only is set but there isn't any dai
> connected, there is no error thrown, is there?
(snip)
> Again we had a verification that if the dpcm_playback was set at the
> dailink level, it was actually supported by the dais.
>
> We seem to have lost this verification. We only have an error when there
> are no settings at all.
Pseudo code of new soc_get_playback_capture() is like this
soc_get_playback_capture(...)
{
...
^ for_each_rtd_ch_maps(...) {
| ...
(A) has_playback = xxx;
| has_capture = xxx;
v }
^ if (dai_link->playback_only)
| has_capture = 0;
(B)
| if (dai_link->capture_only)
v has_playback = 0;
^ if (!has_playback && !has_capture) {
(C) dev_err(...);
v return -EINVAL;
}
...
}
In old/new soc_get_playback_capture(), has_xxx will be set at least
if one of rtd connected DAI can handle playback/capture.
In new code, it will be handled at (A).
And unneeded has_xxx will be removed if xxx_only was set (B)
Then, if neither has_xxx was set, it will be error (C)
In new code, if playback_only is set but there isn't any dai
connected, there is no error thrown, is there?
If playback_only was set, has_capture will be removed at (B).
And if DAI was not playback-able, this means has_playback was not set at (A).
In such case, (C) will indicate error. Same things happen if capture_only too.
So, old functions validation still exist in my opinion, but am I
misunderstanding ?
One note here is that in DPCM case, old function checks CPU only,
but new function checks both CPU and Codec.
2nd note is that in current version of patch-set, if dai_link doesn't
have xxx_only settings (= it should have both playback/capture), but if
DAI has has_playback or has_capture only, it can't detect about it.
I suggested it in previous mail, and will fix in v3
> The point is that these flags are sometimes set in the machine driver,
> sometimes set in the framework, and the open is which one has the priority.
I couldn't understand this.
I think "machine driver" = CPU/Codec driver, but what is "these flags"
which is sometimes set in machine driver, and sometimes set in framework ??
dpcm_xxx ? xxx_only ?? I don't think framework set these...
Or do you mean [09/16] patch (= it will set dai_link->no_pcm) ?
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Renesas Electronics
Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto
