Hi Sridharan
Thank you for reviewing
@@ -1319,18 +1219,11 @@ static int soc_pcm_trigger_stop(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd) { struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data; struct snd_soc_component *component; - struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai; - struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai; + struct snd_soc_dai *dai; int i, ret; - for_each_rtd_codec_dais(rtd, i, codec_dai) { - ret = snd_soc_dai_trigger(codec_dai, substream, cmd); - if (ret < 0) - return ret; - } - - for_each_rtd_cpu_dais(rtd, i, cpu_dai) { - ret = snd_soc_dai_trigger(cpu_dai, substream, cmd); + for_each_rtd_dais(rtd, i, dai) {Morimoto-san,
We are switching the order in which the codec dais and cpu dais are stopped here with this new macro no. Does it make a difference? The same comment applies to some other changes as well.
If the trigger_start() started cpu dais first and then codec dais, do we need to stop in the reverse order?
I'm sorry but I didn't mention detail. Yes, it exchanged the order.
But I'm thinking that the current order was implemented by just a coincidence, and I'm hoping hardware doesn't matter order of same layer (= DAI).
Maybe Mark answered already. https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/20200225014039.GA21366@sirena.org.uk/
But if the order was important for some platform, we need/should consider "order", like for_each_comp_order().
for_each_comp_order(order) { for_each_rtd_dais(rtd, i, dai, order) { ...
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto