The series looks pretty good now, I just found one possible improvement
below
Thanks!
-static int sdw_bank_switch(struct sdw_bus *bus)
+static int sdw_bank_switch(struct sdw_bus *bus, int m_rt_count)
{
int col_index, row_index;
+ bool multi_link;
struct sdw_msg *wr_msg;
u8 *wbuf = NULL;
int ret = 0;
@@ -638,6 +639,8 @@ static int sdw_bank_switch(struct sdw_bus *bus)
if (!wr_msg)
return -ENOMEM;
+ bus->defer_msg.msg = wr_msg;
+
wbuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*wbuf), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!wbuf) {
ret = -ENOMEM;
@@ -658,17 +661,29 @@ static int sdw_bank_switch(struct sdw_bus *bus)
SDW_MSG_FLAG_WRITE, wbuf);
wr_msg->ssp_sync = true;
- ret = sdw_transfer(bus, wr_msg);
+ /*
+ * Set the multi_link flag only when both the hardware supports
+ * and there is a stream handled by multiple masters
+ */
+ multi_link = bus->multi_link && (m_rt_count > 1);
+
+ if (multi_link)
+ ret = sdw_transfer_defer(bus, wr_msg, &bus->defer_msg);
+ else
+ ret = sdw_transfer(bus, wr_msg);
+
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(bus->dev, "Slave frame_ctrl reg write failed");
goto error;
}
- kfree(wr_msg);
- kfree(wbuf);
- bus->defer_msg.msg = NULL;
- bus->params.curr_bank = !bus->params.curr_bank;
- bus->params.next_bank = !bus->params.next_bank;
+ if (!bus->multi_link) {
+ kfree(wr_msg);
+ kfree(wbuf);
+ bus->defer_msg.msg = NULL;
+ bus->params.curr_bank = !bus->params.curr_bank;
+ bus->params.next_bank = !bus->params.next_bank;
+ }
Should this test be extended to the case where the bus can support
multi-link but m_rt_count ==1
should it be
if (!multi_link)
?
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
