On 6/10/23 06:36, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 12:40:09 +0200
>
> Add a jump target so that a call of the function “mutex_unlock”
> is stored only once in this function implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> sound/soc/sof/ipc4-topology.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/ipc4-topology.c b/sound/soc/sof/ipc4-topology.c
> index a4e1a70b607d..f0fd1dfa384e 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/sof/ipc4-topology.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/sof/ipc4-topology.c
> @@ -2300,8 +2300,7 @@ static int sof_ipc4_widget_free(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_widget
> if (pipeline->use_chain_dma) {
> dev_warn(sdev->dev, "use_chain_dma set for scheduler %s",
> swidget->widget->name);
> - mutex_unlock(&ipc4_data->pipeline_state_mutex);
> - return 0;
> + goto unlock;
> }
>
> header = SOF_IPC4_GLB_PIPE_INSTANCE_ID(swidget->instance_id);
> @@ -2326,7 +2325,7 @@ static int sof_ipc4_widget_free(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, struct snd_sof_widget
> if (!pipeline->use_chain_dma)
> ida_free(&fw_module->m_ida, swidget->instance_id);
> }
> -
> +unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&ipc4_data->pipeline_state_mutex);
>
> return ret;
The change looks good but I am wondering if we need to print a dev_warn
log which is already done on the sof_ipc4_widget_setup() path.
This seems redundant. Ranjani, can we simplify?
