On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 10:51 +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
From: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
Current ALSA SoC is directly using component->driver->ops->xxx, thus, it is deep nested, and makes code difficult to read, and is not good for encapsulation. This patch adds new snd_soc_component_hw_free() and use it.
Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
include/sound/soc-component.h | 2 ++ sound/soc/soc-component.c | 10 ++++++++++ sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 6 +----- 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/sound/soc-component.h b/include/sound/soc- component.h index ac93189..9ec67a3 100644 --- a/include/sound/soc-component.h +++ b/include/sound/soc-component.h @@ -332,5 +332,7 @@ int snd_soc_component_prepare(struct snd_soc_component *component, int snd_soc_component_hw_params(struct snd_soc_component *component, struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params); +int snd_soc_component_hw_free(struct snd_soc_component *component,
struct snd_pcm_substream *substream);#endif /* __SOC_COMPONENT_H */ diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-component.c b/sound/soc/soc-component.c index 249dac4..7246518 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-component.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-component.c @@ -326,3 +326,13 @@ int snd_soc_component_hw_params(struct snd_soc_component *component,
return 0; }
+int snd_soc_component_hw_free(struct snd_soc_component *component,
struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)+{
- if (component->driver->ops &&
component->driver->ops->hw_free)return component->driver->ops->hw_free(substream);- return 0;
+} diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index 26f73af..780a119 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c @@ -843,11 +843,7 @@ static int soc_pcm_components_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, if (component == last) break;
if (!component->driver->ops ||!component->driver->ops->hw_free)continue;component->driver->ops->hw_free(substream);
snd_soc_component_hw_free(component, substream);
Morimoto-san,
Just wondering why we dont care about the return value here. I see that the original code ignores the return value too but is it something that should be addressed?
Thanks, Ranjani
}
return 0;