This one is also quite dense, I could use clarifications on how channels will be handled in a multi-cpu context. I believe for the multi-codec case there was an assumption of symmetry, not sure this works or is required in a multi-cpu case, see below.
- symmetry = cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_channels ||
rtd->dai_link->symmetric_channels;
symmetry = rtd->dai_link->symmetric_channels;
for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++)
symmetry |= rtd->cpu_dais[i]->driver->symmetric_channels;for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_codecs; i++) symmetry |= rtd->codec_dais[i]->driver->symmetric_channels;
- if (symmetry && cpu_dai->channels && cpu_dai->channels != channels) {
dev_err(rtd->dev, "ASoC: unmatched channel symmetry: %d - %d\n",cpu_dai->channels, channels);return -EINVAL;- }
- for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++)
if (symmetry && rtd->cpu_dais[i]->channels &&rtd->cpu_dais[i]->channels != channels) {dev_err(rtd->dev, "ASoC: unmatched channel symmetry: %d - %d\n",rtd->cpu_dais[i]->channels, channels);return -EINVAL;}
I am not sure I get this part - but maybe I am connecting too many dots with the SoundWire 'stream' patches.
This code is assuming all cpu_dais have the same number of channels, defined by the hw_params. Is this right? In the SoundWire case, we can have one port with 2 channels and another with 4, for a total of 6 channels for the stream. Am I missing something or how should I reconcile the concepts?
making the assumption that the rates and sample_bits are identical is ok.
- symmetry = cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_samplebits ||
rtd->dai_link->symmetric_samplebits;
symmetry = rtd->dai_link->symmetric_samplebits;
for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++)
symmetry |= rtd->cpu_dais[i]->driver->symmetric_samplebits;for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_codecs; i++) symmetry |= rtd->codec_dais[i]->driver->symmetric_samplebits;
- if (symmetry && cpu_dai->sample_bits && cpu_dai->sample_bits != sample_bits) {
dev_err(rtd->dev, "ASoC: unmatched sample bits symmetry: %d - %d\n",cpu_dai->sample_bits, sample_bits);return -EINVAL;- }
for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++)
if (symmetry && rtd->cpu_dais[i]->sample_bits &&rtd->cpu_dais[i]->sample_bits != sample_bits) {dev_err(rtd->dev, "ASoC: unmatched sample bits symmetry: %d - %d\n",rtd->cpu_dais[i]->sample_bits,sample_bits);return -EINVAL;}return 0; }
@@ -308,13 +328,18 @@ static int soc_pcm_params_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, static bool soc_pcm_has_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) { struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
struct snd_soc_dai_driver *cpu_driver = rtd->cpu_dai->driver; struct snd_soc_dai_link *link = rtd->dai_link; unsigned int symmetry, i;
symmetry = cpu_driver->symmetric_rates || link->symmetric_rates ||
cpu_driver->symmetric_channels || link->symmetric_channels ||cpu_driver->symmetric_samplebits || link->symmetric_samplebits;
- symmetry = link->symmetric_rates || link->symmetric_channels ||
link->symmetric_samplebits;- /* Apply symmetery for multiple cpu dais */
I've never seen this spelling for cemetery :-)
[...]
- for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
cpu_dai_drv = rtd->cpu_dais[i]->driver;if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK)cpu_stream = &cpu_dai_drv->playback;elsecpu_stream = &cpu_dai_drv->capture;cpu_chan_min = max(cpu_chan_min,cpu_stream->channels_min);cpu_chan_max = min(cpu_chan_max,cpu_stream->channels_max);if (hw->formats)hw->formats &= cpu_stream->formats;elsehw->formats = cpu_stream->formats;cpu_rates = snd_pcm_rate_mask_intersect(cpu_rates,cpu_stream->rates);cpu_rate_min = max(cpu_rate_min, cpu_stream->rate_min);cpu_rate_max = min_not_zero(cpu_rate_max, cpu_stream->rate_max);- }
- /*
* chan min/max cannot be enforced if there are multiple CODEC DAIs* connected to a single CPU DAI, use CPU DAI's directly and let* channel allocation be fixed up later
* chan min/max cannot be enforced if there are multiple* CODEC DAIs connected to CPU DAI(s), use CPU DAI's* directly and let channel allocation be fixed up later
What does 'later' mean? I guess I don't quite get the channel management, same issue as my feedback above.
[...]
@@ -963,11 +1070,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, if (ret < 0) goto component_err;
- /* store the parameters for each DAIs */
- cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
- cpu_dai->channels = params_channels(params);
- cpu_dai->sample_bits =
snd_pcm_format_physical_width(params_format(params));
- for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
/* store the parameters for each DAIs */cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dais[i];cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);cpu_dai->channels = params_channels(params);
same here, are we again making the assumption that all cpu_dais can transmit the same number of channels?
[...]
@@ -1107,10 +1229,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd) return ret; }
- if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->trigger) {
ret = cpu_dai->driver->ops->trigger(substream, cmd, cpu_dai);if (ret < 0)return ret;
- for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dais[i];if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->trigger) {ret = cpu_dai->driver->ops->trigger(substream,cmd, cpu_dai);
How do I reconcile this sequential trigger with the notion of bank-switch in SoundWire? It seems we are missing a global trigger for all cpu_dais who are part of the same dailink? Or am I in the weeds again?
[...]
@@ -1157,12 +1287,13 @@ static snd_pcm_uframes_t soc_pcm_pointer(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data; struct snd_soc_component *component; struct snd_soc_rtdcom_list *rtdcom;
- struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai; struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai; struct snd_pcm_runtime *runtime = substream->runtime; snd_pcm_uframes_t offset = 0; snd_pcm_sframes_t delay = 0; snd_pcm_sframes_t codec_delay = 0;
snd_pcm_sframes_t cpu_delay = 0; int i;
for_each_rtdcom(rtd, rtdcom) {
@@ -1177,8 +1308,15 @@ static snd_pcm_uframes_t soc_pcm_pointer(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) break; }
- if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay)
delay += cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay(substream, cpu_dai);
- for (i = 0; i < rtd->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dais[i];if (cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay)cpu_delay = max(cpu_delay,cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay(substream,cpu_dai));- }
- delay += cpu_delay;
Oh, this is weird. If you are checking the delay sequentially for each cpu_dai, what are the odds that you get a consistent reply? I think it's fundamentally different from the codec side since you will in theory be able to check delays on each cpu_dai fairly quickly over IPC, whereas for codecs the delay is likely to be a long-term estimate, not an immediate value. In addition you would probably expect that all cpu_dais are triggered at the same time and hence have the same delay, so you could use the cpu_dais[0] instead of querying the values multiple times.