[PATCH v2 3/3] ASoC: rk3399_gru_sound: Wire up DP jack detection

[Chen-Yu Tsai]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:18 AM Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Chen-Yu,
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 05:01:52PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 7:03 AM Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Now that the cdn-dp driver supports plug-change callbacks, let's wire it
> > > up.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > (no changes since v1)
> > >
> > >  sound/soc/rockchip/rk3399_gru_sound.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/sound/soc/rockchip/rk3399_gru_sound.c b/sound/soc/rockchip/rk3399_gru_sound.c
> > > index e2d52d8d0ff9..eeef3ed70037 100644
> > > --- a/sound/soc/rockchip/rk3399_gru_sound.c
> > > +++ b/sound/soc/rockchip/rk3399_gru_sound.c
> > > @@ -164,6 +164,25 @@ static int rockchip_sound_da7219_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> > >         return 0;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static struct snd_soc_jack cdn_dp_card_jack;
> > > +
> > > +static int rockchip_sound_cdndp_init(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct snd_soc_component *component = asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, 0)->component;
> >
> > Using snd_soc_card_get_codec_dai() might be a better choice throughout this
> > driver. While it will work for the cdn_dp case, because it is the first DAI
> > in |rockchip_dais[]|, all the invocations for the other codecs are likely
> > returning the wrong DAI.
>
> I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with the ASoC object model, so you may
> well be correct that there's something fishy in here. But I did trace
> through the objects involved here, and we *are* getting the correct DAI
> for both this case and the DA7219 case (preexisting code).

Neither am I, so ...

> It looks like we actually have a new runtime for each of our static
> dai_links:
>
> devm_snd_soc_register_card()
>   ...
>   for_each_card_prelinks()
>     snd_soc_add_pcm_runtime()
>
> So I think this is valid to keep as-is.

I missed this bit. As you say, things are good.

> > For this particular patch it works either way, so
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst at chromium.org>
>
> Thanks for looking!

And thanks for double checking!