Quoting Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (2022-02-16 01:42:42)
>
> On 2/15/2022 7:03 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Thanks for your time Stephen!!!
> > Quoting Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (2022-02-14 06:58:26)
> >> + struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *soc_runtime = asoc_substream_to_rtd(substream);
> >> + struct lpaif_dmactl *dmactl;
> >> + int ret = 0, id;
> >> +
> >> + switch (cmd) {
> >> + case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_START:
> >> + case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME:
> >> + case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_RELEASE:
> >> + __lpass_platform_codec_intf_init(dai, substream);
> >> + break;
> >> + case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_STOP:
> >> + case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_SUSPEND:
> >> + case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_PUSH:
> >> + __lpass_get_dmactl_handle(substream, dai, &dmactl, &id);
> >> + if (!dmactl) {
> >> + dev_err(soc_runtime->dev, "failed to get dmactl handle\n");
> > This same message is in many places. I really hope it never gets printed
> > because finding out which line it got printed at is going to be
> > impossible.
> Okay. Will add function name in each print.
Are they useful prints at all? They seem like development prints that
won't trigger after the driver is developed. Why can't we just remove
them?
