On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:14 PM Kuninori Morimoto < kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> wrote:
From: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
It is easy to read code if it is cleanly using paired function/naming, like start <-> stop, register <-> unregister, etc, etc. But, current ALSA SoC code is very random, unbalance, not paired, etc. It is easy to create bug at the such code, and it will be difficult to debug.
snd_soc_bind_card() is calling snd_soc_dapm_init() for both card and component. Let's call paired snd_soc_dapm_shutdown() at paired soc_cleanup_card_resources().
Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
sound/soc/soc-core.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index 927b9c9..0bed63e 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -1940,6 +1940,8 @@ static void soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct snd_soc_card *card) card->snd_card = NULL; }
snd_soc_dapm_shutdown(card);/* remove and free each DAI */ soc_remove_link_dais(card); soc_remove_link_components(card);@@ -2377,7 +2379,6 @@ static void snd_soc_unbind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card, bool unregister)
Morimoto-san,
You removed snd_soc_bind_card in one of the patches but then leaving snd_soc_unbind_card() will be unbalanced isnt it?
Why not just have instantiate_card() and cleanup_card_resources()?
Thanks, Ranjani
{ if (card->instantiated) { card->instantiated = false;
snd_soc_dapm_shutdown(card); snd_soc_flush_all_delayed_work(card); soc_cleanup_card_resources(card);-- 2.7.4
Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel