On 11/7/19 10:14 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 04-11-19, 15:46, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 11/4/19 2:08 PM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-10-23 23:28, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
@@ -816,6 +835,7 @@ static int
intel_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, struct
snd_soc_dai *dai)
{
struct sdw_cdns *cdns = snd_soc_dai_get_drvdata(dai);
+ struct sdw_intel *sdw = cdns_to_intel(cdns);
struct sdw_cdns_dma_data *dma;
int ret;
@@ -823,12 +843,28 @@ intel_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream
*substream, struct snd_soc_dai *dai)
if (!dma)
return -EIO;
+ ret = sdw_deprepare_stream(dma->stream);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(dai->dev, "sdw_deprepare_stream: failed %d", ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
I understand that you want to be transparent to caller with failure
reasons via dev_err/_warn. However, sdw_deprepare_stream already dumps
all the logs we need. The same applies for most of the other calls (and
not just in this patch..).
I think this is a valid concern! In linux we do not do that, for example
we ask people to not log errors on kmalloc as it will be logged on
failures so drivers do not need to do that.
Do we really need to be that verbose? Maybe just agree on caller -or-
subject being the source for the messaging, align existing usages and
thus preventing further duplication?
Not forcing anything, just asking for your opinion on this.
the sdw_prepare/deprepare_stream calls provide error logs, but they are not
mapped to specific devices/dais (pr_err vs. dev_dbg). I found it was easier
to check for which dai the error was reported.
Well in that case we should fix pr_err, there are only 17 instances of
these in core, and few of them are justified in core (no dev pointer)
and 11 in stream (few of them valid (no stream pointer) but rest can be
converted to use dev_err! Even then they print stream name, so checking
error is not justified argument!
the stream has no notion of device, it can be made of multiple devices,
so which one would you choose?
We are also in the middle of integration with new hardware/boards, and
erring on the side of more traces will help everyone involved. We can
revisit later which ones are strictly necessary.
Naah you are having duplicate logs, it does *not* help in debug seems
1000 line logs and few lines conveying duplicate info, I would rather
have each line unique so that I dont have to skip duplicate ones while
debugging!
They are not all duplicates.
Again, if I remove the logs in stream.c, then I do lose valuable
information on bad state machines transitions, etc. An error code is not
enough to reconstruct the issues from intel.c
If I remove the logs in intel.c, I can't know which dai had an error and
what caused it.
seriously, these are all details, you have over 50 patches to review
with a complete rework of this subsystem and we argue about dev_err
verbosity?
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
