@@ -313,13 +333,18 @@ 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;
- unsigned int symmetry = 0, i;
No need to init this to zero you are explicitly setting it straight after.
yes, will fix it.
@@ -427,30 +466,55 @@ static void soc_pcm_init_runtime_hw(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) rates = snd_pcm_rate_mask_intersect(codec_stream->rates, rates); }
- 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;
else
cpu_stream = &cpu_dai_drv->capture;
cpu_chan_min = max(hw->channels_min,
cpu_stream->channels_min);
cpu_chan_max = min(hw->channels_max,
cpu_stream->channels_max);
At the end of the loop cpu_chan_min and cpu_chan_max will only have considered the channels_min/max from the last cpu DAI, is that the behaviour you wanted?
if (hw->formats)
hw->formats &= cpu_stream->formats;
else
hw->formats = cpu_stream->formats;
cpu_rates = snd_pcm_rate_mask_intersect(cpu_rates,
cpu_stream->rates);
cpu_rate_min = max(hw->rate_min, cpu_stream->rate_min);
cpu_rate_max = min_not_zero(hw->rate_max, cpu_stream->rate_max);
Same here with cpu_rate_min and cpu_rate_max all the first n-1 CPU DAIs are ignored and only the last DAI is considered.
This is not intended, will fix this and the previous comment.
@@ -1162,7 +1292,7 @@ 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;
@@ -1182,8 +1312,12 @@ 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)
delay += cpu_dai->driver->ops->delay(substream,
cpu_dai);
- }
Should we be adding these delays? Wouldn't it be better to use the max CPU DAI delay as we do for the CODECs, or is there a reason these are additive?
Yes, this has to be fixed. I thought I had fixed this in the earlier reviews :(
if (!be->dai_link->no_pcm) continue;
dev_dbg(card->dev, "ASoC: try BE %s\n",
be->cpu_dai->capture_widget ?
be->cpu_dai->capture_widget->name : "(not set)");
for (i = 0; i < be->num_cpu_dai; i++) {
struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = be->cpu_dais[i];
if (be->cpu_dai->capture_widget == widget)
return be;
dev_dbg(card->dev, "ASoC: try BE %s\n",
cpu_dai->capture_widget ?
cpu_dai->capture_widget->name : "(not set)");
if (cpu_dai->capture_widget == widget)
return be;
} for (i = 0; i < be->num_codecs; i++) { struct snd_soc_dai *dai = be->codec_dais[i];
I still think you need to get Liam or someone to review this DPCM stuff. Multi-CPU DAIs feels like it could be a tricky thing to merge with DPCM and I am not sure I am confident enough in me reviewing it right.
Sure, makes sense :)
Thanks for the review!
--Shreyas
--