On Tue, 09 Apr 2019 18:11:07 +0200, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > On 4/9/19 10:48 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Apr 2019 16:23:17 +0200, > > Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > >> > >> > >>> ok, thanks for confirming. we'll remove the INFO_RESUME flag in SOF > >>> and follow-up with the removal on all other Intel drivers. Thanks > >>> for enlightening us on this. > >> > >> Actually one more question related to the documentation, which reads > >> > >> "Note that the trigger with SUSPEND can always be called when > >> snd_pcm_suspend_all() is called, regardless of the > >> SNDRV_PCM_INFO_RESUME flag. The RESUME flag affects only the behavior > >> of snd_pcm_resume(). (Thus, in theory, SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME isn’t > >> needed to be handled in the trigger callback when no > >> SNDRV_PCM_INFO_RESUME flag is set. But, it’s better to keep it for > >> compatibility reasons.)" > >> > >> I could not figure out what the last sentence means. It's my > >> understanding that the resume_trigger will never be called with the > >> code flow below when INFO_RESUME isn't declared. Would you mind > >> clarifying what this compatibility might be? Thanks! > > > > Well, in the above "better to keep it" text -- here "it" was meant as > > SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME case handling in the trigger callback, not as > > SNDRV_PCM_INFO_RESUME flag. That is, the above recommends a trigger > > callback like below would keep SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME although it > > won't be called practically: > > That's the part that I find odd. we keep the TRIGGER_RESUME but it > will never be called, that's an unreachable/untestable switch case, > no? Or we should trap it as an error case. It's just for consistency. But it might look confusing, yeah. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
