On 2019-08-07 03:31, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
From: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
snd_soc_dapm_add_routes() registers routes by using for(... i < num; ...). If routes was NULL, num should be zero. Thus, we don't need to check about route pointer. This patch also cares missing return value.
Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
v1 -> v2
- check return value
- change Subject
sound/soc/soc-core.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index 21cdd3c..ca1b04c 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -1310,10 +1310,11 @@ static int soc_probe_component(struct snd_soc_card *card, if (ret < 0) goto err_probe;
- if (component->driver->dapm_routes)
snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(dapm,component->driver->dapm_routes,component->driver->num_dapm_routes);
ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(dapm,
component->driver->dapm_routes,component->driver->num_dapm_routes);if (ret < 0)
goto err_probe;list_add(&dapm->list, &card->dapm_list); /* see for_each_card_components */
@@ -2060,13 +2061,15 @@ static int snd_soc_instantiate_card(struct snd_soc_card *card) snd_soc_add_card_controls(card, card->controls, card->num_controls);
- if (card->dapm_routes)
snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->dapm_routes,card->num_dapm_routes);
- ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->dapm_routes,
card->num_dapm_routes);- if (ret < 0)
goto probe_end;
- if (card->of_dapm_routes)
snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_routes,card->num_of_dapm_routes);
ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_routes,
card->num_of_dapm_routes);if (ret < 0)
goto probe_end;/* try to set some sane longname if DMI is available */ snd_soc_set_dmi_name(card, NULL);
Hello there,
I've run a validation cycle on recent broonie/for-next and this commit caused regression. However, it may be simply an error on board side instead.
Previously, ret from snd_soc_dapm_add_routes has been ignored thus it was permissive for addition of several routes to fail. As long as some routes succeeded, card was working just fine. Now it's no longer the case - behavior of the card initialization has changed: it is required for ALL routes to succeed before card can be fully instantiated.
Must say collapsing snd_soc_instantiate_card is a wonderful way to test your card's removal flow (soc__cleanup_card_resources and friends)..
Question is simple: are we staying with all-for-one/ one-for-all approach or we reverting to permissive behavior?
Czarek