On 26-07-19, 09:46, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/19 5:38 AM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> > On 2019-07-26 01:40, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > +void intel_shutdown(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> > > + struct snd_soc_dai *dai)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sdw_cdns_dma_data *dma;
> > > +
> > > + dma = snd_soc_dai_get_dma_data(dai, substream);
> > > + if (!dma)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + snd_soc_dai_set_dma_data(dai, substream, NULL);
> > > + kfree(dma);
> > > +}
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we really need to _get_dma_ here?
> > _set_dma_ seems bulletproof, same for kfree.
>
> I must admit I have no idea why we have a reference to DMAs here, this looks
> like an abuse to store a dai-specific context, and the initial test looks
> like copy-paste to detect invalid configs, as done in other callbacks. Vinod
> and Sanyog might have more history than me here.
I dont see snd_soc_dai_set_dma_data() call for
sdw_cdns_dma_data so somthing is missing (at least in upstream code)
IIRC we should have a snd_soc_dai_set_dma_data() in alloc or some
initialization routine and we free it here.. Sanyog?
--
~Vinod
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
