On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:14 PM Kuninori Morimoto <
kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It is easy to read code if it is cleanly using paired function/naming,
> like start <-> stop, register <-> unregister, etc, etc.
> But, current ALSA SoC code is very random, unbalance, not paired, etc.
> It is easy to create bug at the such code, and it will be difficult to
> debug.
>
> snd_soc_bind_card() is calling snd_soc_dapm_init() for both
> card and component.
> Let's call paired snd_soc_dapm_shutdown() at paired
> soc_cleanup_card_resources().
>
> Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> sound/soc/soc-core.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> index 927b9c9..0bed63e 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> @@ -1940,6 +1940,8 @@ static void soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct
> snd_soc_card *card)
> card->snd_card = NULL;
> }
>
> + snd_soc_dapm_shutdown(card);
> +
> /* remove and free each DAI */
> soc_remove_link_dais(card);
> soc_remove_link_components(card);
> @@ -2377,7 +2379,6 @@ static void snd_soc_unbind_card(struct snd_soc_card
> *card, bool unregister)
>
Morimoto-san,
You removed snd_soc_bind_card in one of the patches but then leaving
snd_soc_unbind_card() will be unbalanced isnt it?
Why not just have instantiate_card() and cleanup_card_resources()?
Thanks,
Ranjani
> {
> if (card->instantiated) {
> card->instantiated = false;
> - snd_soc_dapm_shutdown(card);
> snd_soc_flush_all_delayed_work(card);
>
> soc_cleanup_card_resources(card);
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
