[PATCH 2/3] ASoC: add function parameters to enable forced path pruning

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 08:41:27AM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:45:44PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > So why doesn't DPCM recognize that the path is inactive and why is it
> > better to do this than fix whatever the issue is there?

> Of course that would be better abd I'd much prefer that. Unfortunately I 
> haven't been able to find a single scenario in which those paths would be 
> exercised. As far as I understand path pruning should take place e.g. 
> when a mixer modifies audio routing and as a result disables a certain 
> pipeline, which is then pruned. If I could reproduce such a scenario I 
> would be able to first check whether it's working, then see exactly how 
> it is working and then see how best to add my use case to it. Since I 
> wasn't able to find such a scenario, my only option was to preserve 
> the current state and add my own path "on top." I'd be happy to try the 
> other path too, I just need a use case, that I can reproduce.

It's still not clear to me what the issue is here.  If something is
making a modification to the graph which needs a recheck or update I'd
expect that these things happen along with that modification.  I don't
understand what you're saying about not being able to reproduce
scenarios or adding things "on top".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20200311/d625fcc9/attachment-0001.sig>