[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <338690ee-a081-054c-36e3-3f5fb3733442@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:19:56 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: 朱灿灿 <zhucancan@...o.com>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
broonie@...nel.org, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel <kernel@...o.com>,
王文虎 <wenhu.wang@...o.com>,
trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-pcm: fix BE dai not hw_free and
shutdown during mixer update
On 5/29/20 5:12 AM, 朱灿灿 wrote:
> FE state is SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_PREPARE now, BE1 is
> used by FE.
>
> Later when new BE2 is added to FE by mixer update,
> it will call dpcm_run_update_startup() to update
> BE2's state, but unfortunately BE2 .prepare() meets
> error, it will disconnect all non started BE.
>
> This make BE1 dai skip .hw_free() and .shutdown(),
> and the BE1 users will never decrease to zero.
>
> Signed-off-by: zhucancan <zhucancan@...o.com>
> ---
> re-format patch content v2
> ---
> sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> index 1f302de44052..df34422bd0dd 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> @@ -2730,12 +2730,12 @@ static int dpcm_run_update_startup(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int stream)
> close:
> dpcm_be_dai_shutdown(fe, stream);
> disconnect:
> - /* disconnect any non started BEs */
> + /* disconnect any closed BEs */
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fe->card->dpcm_lock, flags);
> for_each_dpcm_be(fe, stream, dpcm) {
> struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *be = dpcm->be;
> - if (be->dpcm[stream].state != SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_START)
> - dpcm->state = SND_SOC_DPCM_LINK_STATE_FREE;
> + if (be->dpcm[stream].state == SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_CLOSE)
> + dpcm->state = SND_SOC_DPCM_LINK_STATE_FREE;
> }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fe->card->dpcm_lock, flags);
This change is quite hard to review, this error handling can be called
from multiple places.
I *think* it's correct because in all cases where the
disconnect/close/hw_free labels are reached, the non-shared BEs either
remain or are put in the DPCM_STATE_CLOSE state before doing this test.
Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
It really wouldn't hurt though if others double-checked this change...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists