[alsa-devel] [PATCH v2 09/25] ASoC: soc-core: tidyup for snd_soc_dapm_add_routes()

[Cezary Rojewski]

On 2019-08-07 03:31, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> 
> From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx at renesas.com>
> 
> snd_soc_dapm_add_routes() registers routes by using
> for(... i < num; ...). If routes was NULL, num should be zero.
> Thus, we don't need to check about route pointer.
> This patch also cares missing return value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx at renesas.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2
> 
> 	- check return value
> 	- change Subject
> 
>   sound/soc/soc-core.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> index 21cdd3c..ca1b04c 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> @@ -1310,10 +1310,11 @@ static int soc_probe_component(struct snd_soc_card *card,
>   	if (ret < 0)
>   		goto err_probe;
>   
> -	if (component->driver->dapm_routes)
> -		snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(dapm,
> -					component->driver->dapm_routes,
> -					component->driver->num_dapm_routes);
> +	ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(dapm,
> +				      component->driver->dapm_routes,
> +				      component->driver->num_dapm_routes);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto err_probe;
>   
>   	list_add(&dapm->list, &card->dapm_list);
>   	/* see for_each_card_components */
> @@ -2060,13 +2061,15 @@ static int snd_soc_instantiate_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
>   		snd_soc_add_card_controls(card, card->controls,
>   					  card->num_controls);
>   
> -	if (card->dapm_routes)
> -		snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->dapm_routes,
> -					card->num_dapm_routes);
> +	ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->dapm_routes,
> +				      card->num_dapm_routes);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto probe_end;
>   
> -	if (card->of_dapm_routes)
> -		snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_routes,
> -					card->num_of_dapm_routes);
> +	ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_routes,
> +				      card->num_of_dapm_routes);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto probe_end;
>   
>   	/* try to set some sane longname if DMI is available */
>   	snd_soc_set_dmi_name(card, NULL);
> 

Hello there,

I've run a validation cycle on recent broonie/for-next and this commit 
caused regression. However, it may be simply an error on board side instead.

Previously, ret from snd_soc_dapm_add_routes has been ignored thus it 
was permissive for addition of several routes to fail. As long as some 
routes succeeded, card was working just fine. Now it's no longer the 
case - behavior of the card initialization has changed: it is required 
for ALL routes to succeed before card can be fully instantiated.

Must say collapsing snd_soc_instantiate_card is a wonderful way to test 
your card's removal flow (soc__cleanup_card_resources and friends)..

Question is simple: are we staying with all-for-one/ one-for-all 
approach or we reverting to permissive behavior?

Czarek