On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:23:58PM +0530, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 04:30:29PM +0530, Shreyas NC wrote:
> > This adds support for Multi CPU DAIs in PCM ops and stream
> > handling functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shreyas NC <shreyas.nc@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > @@ -313,13 +333,17 @@ static int soc_pcm_params_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> > static bool soc_pcm_has_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > {
> > struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> > - struct snd_soc_dai_driver *cpu_driver = rtd->cpu_dai->driver;
> > struct snd_soc_dai_link *link = rtd->dai_link;
> > - unsigned int symmetry, i;
> > + unsigned int symmetry = 0, i;
> >
> > - symmetry = cpu_driver->symmetric_rates || link->symmetric_rates ||
> > - cpu_driver->symmetric_channels || link->symmetric_channels ||
> > - cpu_driver->symmetric_samplebits || link->symmetric_samplebits;
> > + /* Apply symmetery for multiple cpu dais */
> > + for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++)
> > + symmetry = rtd->cpu_dais[i]->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> > + link->symmetric_rates ||
> > + rtd->cpu_dais[i]->driver->symmetric_channels ||
> > + link->symmetric_channels ||
> > + rtd->cpu_dais[i]->driver->symmetric_samplebits ||
> > + link->symmetric_samplebits;
>
> No need to bring the link-> stuff into the loop, it won't change
> on each iteration. Would also make the code look neater to leave
> it before the loop.
>
Sure, makes sense.
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_codecs; i++)
> > symmetry = symmetry ||
> > @@ -347,10 +371,10 @@ static void soc_pcm_set_msb(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int bits)
> > static void soc_pcm_apply_msb(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > {
> > struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> > - struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
> > + struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai;
> > struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai;
> > int i;
> > - unsigned int bits = 0, cpu_bits;
> > + unsigned int bits = 0, cpu_bits = 0;
> >
> > if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK) {
> > for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_codecs; i++) {
> > @@ -361,7 +385,17 @@ static void soc_pcm_apply_msb(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > }
> > bits = max(codec_dai->driver->playback.sig_bits, bits);
> > }
> > - cpu_bits = cpu_dai->driver->playback.sig_bits;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
> > + cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dais[i];
> > + if (cpu_dai->driver->playback.sig_bits == 0) {
> > + cpu_bits = 0;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + cpu_bits = max(
> > + cpu_dai->driver->playback.sig_bits, bits);
>
> Can help but feel this would look nicer if you only wrapped the
> second argument down a line. Although tbf its only 1 character so
> you could probably just run over the line length as well.
>
Ok
> > @@ -427,30 +464,41 @@ static void soc_pcm_init_runtime_hw(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > rates = snd_pcm_rate_mask_intersect(codec_stream->rates, rates);
> > }
> >
> > - /*
> > - * chan min/max cannot be enforced if there are multiple CODEC DAIs
> > - * connected to a single CPU DAI, use CPU DAI's directly and let
> > - * channel allocation be fixed up later
> > - */
> > - if (rtd->num_codecs > 1) {
> > - chan_min = cpu_stream->channels_min;
> > - chan_max = cpu_stream->channels_max;
> > - }
> > + for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
> > + cpu_dai_drv = rtd->cpu_dais[i]->driver;
> >
> > - hw->channels_min = max(chan_min, cpu_stream->channels_min);
> > - hw->channels_max = min(chan_max, cpu_stream->channels_max);
> > - if (hw->formats)
> > - hw->formats &= formats & cpu_stream->formats;
> > - else
> > - hw->formats = formats & cpu_stream->formats;
> > - hw->rates = snd_pcm_rate_mask_intersect(rates, cpu_stream->rates);
> > + if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK)
> > + cpu_stream = &cpu_dai_drv->playback;
> > + else
> > + cpu_stream = &cpu_dai_drv->capture;
> >
> > - snd_pcm_limit_hw_rates(runtime);
> > + /*
> > + * chan min/max cannot be enforced if there are multiple
> > + * CODEC DAIs connected to a single CPU DAI, use CPU DAI's
> > + * directly and let channel allocation be fixed up later
> > + */
> > + if (rtd->num_codecs > 1) {
> > + chan_min = cpu_stream->channels_min;
> > + chan_max = cpu_stream->channels_max;
> > + }
> > +
> > + hw->channels_min = max(chan_min, cpu_stream->channels_min);
> > + hw->channels_max = min(chan_max, cpu_stream->channels_max);
> > + if (hw->formats)
> > + hw->formats &= formats & cpu_stream->formats;
> > + else
> > + hw->formats = formats & cpu_stream->formats;
> >
>
> I don't think actually ends up with the correct values in
> hw->channels_min/max. Nothing compares one iteration of the
> loop to the previous one so you don't end up with the min/max for
> all the CPU DAIs you just end up with the values from the last
> CPU DAI.
>
Yes, you are right. Thanks for pointing that out :)
> > /*
> > @@ -465,12 +513,15 @@ static int soc_pcm_open(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > struct snd_soc_platform *platform = rtd->platform;
> > struct snd_soc_component *component;
> > struct snd_soc_rtdcom_list *rtdcom;
> > - struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
> > + struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai;
> > struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai;
> > const char *codec_dai_name = "multicodec";
> > - int i, ret = 0, __ret;
> > + const char *cpu_dai_name = "multicpu";
> > + int i, ret = 0, __ret, j;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++)
> > + pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(rtd->cpu_dais[i]->dev);
> >
> > - pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(cpu_dai->dev);
> > for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_codecs; i++)
> > pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(rtd->codec_dais[i]->dev);
> >
> > @@ -483,12 +534,15 @@ static int soc_pcm_open(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > mutex_lock_nested(&rtd->pcm_mutex, rtd->pcm_subclass);
> >
> > /* startup the audio subsystem */
> > - if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->startup) {
> > - ret = cpu_dai->driver->ops->startup(substream, cpu_dai);
> > - if (ret < 0) {
> > - dev_err(cpu_dai->dev, "ASoC: can't open interface"
> > - " %s: %d\n", cpu_dai->name, ret);
> > - goto out;
> > + for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
> > + cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dais[i];
> > + if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->startup) {
> > + ret = cpu_dai->driver->ops->startup(substream, cpu_dai);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(cpu_dai->dev, "ASoC: can't open interface %s: %d\n",
> > + cpu_dai->name, ret);
> > + goto out;
>
> I don't believe this jumps to the right place anymore since you
> need to shutdown any CPU DAIs you have already started up.
>
Ok, I will re-visit this and correct it in v2.
> > @@ -1276,8 +1388,12 @@ static snd_pcm_uframes_t soc_pcm_pointer(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay)
> > - delay += cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay(substream, cpu_dai);
> > + for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
> > + cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dais[i];
> > + if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay)
> > + delay += cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay(substream,
> > + cpu_dai);
> > + }
>
> I am not clear we should be adding the delays here can't they all
> run in parallel? In which case shouldn't we be taking the max?
>
Yes, you are right that we shouldn't be adding the delays and max() would be
a right check.
> > @@ -2998,8 +3139,13 @@ int soc_new_pcm(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd, int num)
> > capture = 1;
> > }
> >
> > - capture = capture && cpu_dai->driver->capture.channels_min;
> > - playback = playback && cpu_dai->driver->playback.channels_min;
> > + for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
> > + cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dais[i];
> > + capture = capture &&
> > + cpu_dai->driver->capture.channels_min;
> > + playback = playback &&
> > + cpu_dai->driver->playback.channels_min;
> > + }
>
> This doesn't look right either since you will end up with the
> values for the last CPU DAI surely you want some sort of combined
> value.
>
Yeah, in hindsight it does not make sense. So, I think it would be better to
keep the logic same as above (multiple codec DAI)
> I am also a little nervous about the mapping between widgets and
> DAIs in dpcm_prune_paths. But I don't think I really understand
> that bit of the code well enough to provide good comments.
> Hopefully someone with more understanding than me can have a look
> :-)
>
Even I am not too sure about this and I followed what is done for codec DAI
which as you suspect may not be the right thing.
Let us wait for others to review :)
--Shreyas
--
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
