On 17/02/2022 00:23, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
Hi Richard
Thank you for your patch. One comment from me.
struct asoc_simple_dai { const char *name; unsigned int sysclk; @@ -26,6 +31,9 @@ struct asoc_simple_dai { unsigned int rx_slot_mask; struct clk *clk; bool clk_fixed;
- struct asoc_simple_tdm_width_map *tdm_width_map;
- int n_tdm_widths;
- struct snd_soc_dai *dai; };
(snip)
(snip)
(snip)
@@ -386,6 +479,8 @@ static int asoc_simple_init_dai(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, if (!simple_dai) return 0;
- simple_dai->dai = dai;
Indeed the relationship between asoc_simple_dai and snd_soc_dai are very mystery, and current utils is using confusable naming. We want to have some better solution about there.
Having snd_soc_dai pointer inside asoc_simple_dai itself is not bad idea. But we can get snd_soc_dai pointer without it.
Please check asoc_simple_dai_init(). Not tested, but we can replace the code like this ?
=> struct snd_soc_dai *dai;
for_each_prop_dai_codec(props, i, pdai) { => dai = asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, i); ret = asoc_simple_set_tdm(dai, pdai, params); if (ret < 0) return ret; }
I first thought about doing it like that. But I was not sure whether it is safe to assume [i] is the same entry for both arrays. If it is ok, then I can use that and do not need to add the snd_soc_dai * to struct asoc_simple_dai.
I will look at this and send a V2 set if it is ok.