On 8/2/19 12:28 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 26-07-19, 09:46, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 7/26/19 5:38 AM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-07-26 01:40, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
+void intel_shutdown(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, + struct snd_soc_dai *dai) +{ + struct sdw_cdns_dma_data *dma;
+ dma = snd_soc_dai_get_dma_data(dai, substream); + if (!dma) + return;
+ snd_soc_dai_set_dma_data(dai, substream, NULL); + kfree(dma); +}
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we really need to _get_dma_ here? _set_dma_ seems bulletproof, same for kfree.
I must admit I have no idea why we have a reference to DMAs here, this looks like an abuse to store a dai-specific context, and the initial test looks like copy-paste to detect invalid configs, as done in other callbacks. Vinod and Sanyog might have more history than me here.
I dont see snd_soc_dai_set_dma_data() call for sdw_cdns_dma_data so somthing is missing (at least in upstream code)
IIRC we should have a snd_soc_dai_set_dma_data() in alloc or some initialization routine and we free it here.. Sanyog?
the code does a bunch of get_dma_data() and this seems to work, but indeed I don't see where the _set_dma_data() is done. magic.