[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200113052224.GQ2818@vkoul-mobl>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:52:24 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
tiwai@...e.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
broonie@...nel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
jank@...ence.com, slawomir.blauciak@...el.com,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
Rander Wang <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/6] soundwire: stream: update state machine
and add state checks
On 11-01-20, 05:30, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>
> On 1/10/20 10:30 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> >
> > > > - int sdw_prepare_stream(struct sdw_stream_runtime * stream);
> > > > + int sdw_prepare_stream(struct sdw_stream_runtime * stream,
> > > > bool resume);
> > >
> > > so what does the additional argument of resume do..?
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/stream.c b/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
> > > > index 178ae92b8cc1..6aa0b5d370c0 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
> > > > @@ -1553,8 +1553,18 @@ int sdw_prepare_stream(struct
> > > > sdw_stream_runtime *stream)
> > >
> > > and it is not modified here, so is the doc correct or this..?
> >
> > the doc is correct and the code is updated in
> >
> > [PATCH 4/6] soundwire: stream: do not update parameters during
> > DISABLED-PREPARED transition
>
> Sorry, wrong answer, my bad. The code block in the documentation is
> incorrect.
>
> The Patch 4/6 implements the transition mentioned in the documentation, but
> the extra parameter is a left-over from an earlier version. This case is now
> handled internally. We did revert to the initial prototype after finding out
> that dealing with transitions in the caller is error-prone.
Glad that you agree with me on something!
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists