Hi Mark, Amadeusz, Jerome, Pierre-Louis This is v2.5 patch which is preparation for v3. Because full-patch-set has over 20 patches, to avoid posting huge patch-bomb, I try to post main patch only for preparation. In v2.5, it will use xxx_assertion flag, and exising dpcm_xxx and xxx_only flags will be converted to it. I think it can keep compatibility and possible to indicate link error same as before which was conserned by Pierre-Louis. Please let me know if it still not good match. One of my big consern is Amadeusz/Jerome's idea which uses "XXX | YYY" style. To avoid confusion, let's name each style as below here. [Flag style] unsigned int flags; #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_PLAYBACK BIT(x) #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_CAPTURE BIT(x) ... [BitField style] unsigned int playback_assertion:1; unsigned int capture_assertion:1; ... This v2.5 patch is using [BitField style] and I think it is not a big problem from "code point of view", but I think [Flag style] is better for "human understandable point of view", because we can define like below, for example. #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_PLAYBACK /* no flag is needed */ #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_PLAYBACK_WITH_ASSERTION SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_PLAYBACK #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_CAPTURE /* no flag is needed */ #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_CAPTURE_WITH_ASSERTION SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_CAPTURE #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_BIDIRECTIONAL /* no flag is needed */ #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_BIDIRECTIONAL_WITH_ASSERTION (SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_PLAYBACK | SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_CAPTURE) #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_PLAYBACK_ONLY SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_PLAYBACK #define SND_SOC_FLAGS_AVAILABLE_CAPTURE_ONLY SND_SOC_FLAGS_ASSERTION_CAPTURE Switch to [Flag style] is OK for me, but one consern is that in such case, people will wonder "why ASoC is using both [Flag style] and [BitField style] in the same time ?", because we are using [BitField style] for other flags. So, my suggestion is that next v3 patch uses [Flag style]. And after that, post new patch-set to switch [BitField style] to [Flag style] for other flags. But I wonder is this good approach ? v2 -> v2.5 - use xxx_assertion flag - dpcm_xxx -> xxx_assertion - xxx_only -> xxx_assertion - only [01/xx] patch v1 -> v2 - based on latest ASoC branch - keep comment on Intel - tidyup patch title - tidyup DPCM BE warning output condition - Add new patch for Document Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87o7b353of.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87zfuesz8y.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Renesas Electronics Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto
