On 12/7/2023 2:21 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
Hi Amadeusz
Thank you for your feedback
--- a/include/sound/soc.h +++ b/include/sound/soc.h @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ snd_soc_link_to_platform(struct snd_soc_dai_link *link, int n) { #define COMP_PLATFORM(_name) { .name = _name } #define COMP_AUX(_name) { .name = _name } #define COMP_CODEC_CONF(_name) { .name = _name } -#define COMP_DUMMY() { .name = "snd-soc-dummy", .dai_name = "snd-soc-dummy-dai", } +#define COMP_DUMMY() /* see snd_soc_fill_dummy_dai() */
Isn't it effectively making COMP_DUMMY same as COMP_EMPTY, or am I not seeing something? I guess next step could be to just remove all COMP_DUMMY and replace them with COMP_EMPTY to avoid two definitions which are same thing?
It is a little bit macro magic
COMP_EMPTY() static struct snd_soc_dai_link_component name[] = {{ }}, ^^^ COMP_DUMMY() static struct snd_soc_dai_link_component name[] = { }, ^^^ EMPTY case will be 1 element array, DUMMY case will be 0 element array. So, EMPTY case has empty element, and is not a special/strange array. But DUMMY case, it has pointer but 0 size array, very special/strange. This patch making this special/strange array on purpose, and convert it to asoc_dummy_dlc() on soc-core.c Is this good answer for you ?
Yes, thanks!
if (dai_link->num_platforms == 0 && dai_link->platforms) {dev_warn(card->dev, "platform don't need dummy Component/DAI\n");I would just replace above print with code comment, no need to spam dmesg.
OK, will fix in v2
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
Renesas Electronics Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto