On 4/7/24 22:55, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> Hi Pierre-Louis, again
>
>> dpcm_xxx is used to declare that the DAI/dailink is possible to use
>> playback/capture. For example dpcm_playback means the DAI / dailink
>> should playback-able, if not it is error.
>>
>> xxx_only is used to limit the playback/capture.
>> For example the DAI / dailink can use both playback and capture,
>> but want to use playback only for some reasons, we can use playback_only.
>
> My pervious patch-set was "try to merge dpcm_xxx and xxx_only flag",
> but next patch will be "expand assertion flag to all connection".
> This "assertion flag" was originaly dpcm_xxx.
>
> In next patch-set, it will assume for example current "dpcm_playback"
> as "playback_assertion". It can be used not only for DPCM, but
> all connection, but is not mandatory option.
>
> Its pseudo code is like below, but what do you think ?
>
> soc_get_playback_capture(...)
> {
> ...
> /*
> * get HW / DAI availability
> */
> for_each_rtd_ch_maps(...) {
> ...
> has_playback = xxx;
> has_capture = xxx;
> }
>
> /*
> * "xxx_assersion" was "dpcm_xxx" before, but expand to
> * all connection. It is not mandatory option.
> * It will be error if dai_link has xxx_assersion flag,
> * but DAI was not valid
> */
> if (dai_link->playback_assertion && !has_playback) {
> dev_err(rtd->dev, ...);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> if (dai_link->capture_assertion && !has_capture) {
> dev_err(rtd->dev, ...);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> /*
> * xxx_only flag limits availability. It will indicate warning
> * if DAI was not valid.
> */
> if (dai_link->playback_only) {
> if (!has_capture)
> dev_warn(rtd->dev, ...);
> has_capture = 0;
> }
>
> if (dai_link->capture_only) {
> if (!has_playback)
> dev_warn(rtd->dev, ...);
> has_playback = 0;
> }
>
> /*
> * No Playback, No Capture is error
> */
> if (!has_playback && !has_capture) {
> dev_err(rtd->dev, ...);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> ...
> }
The code looks fine, but what are we trying to achieve?
I thought the idea was to have a single field at the dailink, and with
the example above we would still have two - just like today.
This looks like a lot of code churn in many drivers for limited
benefits. Or I am missing something?
