On 9/29/2021 2:55 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 8/27/21 4:33 AM, Sameer Pujar wrote:
[...]
But in addition we'd need to agree on what an 'active BE' is. Why can't
we connect a second stream while the first one is already in HW_PARAMS
or PAUSED or STOP? It's perfectly legal in ALSA/ASoC to have multiple
HW_PARAMS calls, and when we reach STOP we have to do a prepare again.
And more fundamentally, the ability to add a second FE on a 'active' BE
in START state is a basic requirement for a mixer, e.g. to play a
notification on one FE while listening to music on another. What needs
to happen is only to make sure that the FE and BE are compatible in
terms of HW_PARAMS and not sending a second TRIGGER_STOP, only checking
the BE NEW or CLOSE state is way too restrictive.
Sorry for the trouble to your system.
Idea was to avoid reconfiguration of the same BE DAI again, but not to
stop the provision to add a subsequent FE. In fact I had tested mixing
of streams coming from 10 different FEs.
In your case, because of this patch, looks like the subsequent FE is not
finding a BE DAI since it is already active due to a prior FE. The
reason it works at my end is because the mixer input and output DAIs are
separated. Any new FE would just configure the mixer input DAI to which
it is attached and skip already running/configured output DAI. I am just
curious to know, if originally you were reconfiguring the BE DAI again
with same parameters (for a second FE) or some additional configuration
is done?
I can send a revert with the explanations in the commit message if there
is a consensus that this patch needs to be revisited.
May be this can be revisited since it appears to be a critical problem
for your system. But I hope this discussion can be alive on following
points for a better fix.
1. The original issue at my end was not just a configuration redundancy.
I realize now that with more stream addition following error print is seen.
"ASoC: too many users playback at open 4"
This is because the max DPCM users is capped at 8. Increasing this
may help (need to see what number is better), but does not address the
redundancy problem.
2. If reconfiguration of the same BE is not necessary for a subsequent
FE run, shouldn't we avoid the reconfig itself and somehow avoid FE failure?
