linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-pcm: Optimize hw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9694bc9c-4ad0-46c2-8626-e569734f2e47@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 17:31:41 +0530
From: Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>
To: "Sheetal ." <sheetal@...dia.com>, broonie@...nel.org,
 lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
 linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com,
 ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com, peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com
Cc: linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 jonathanh@...dia.com, thierry.reding@...il.com, mkumard@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-pcm: Optimize hw_params() BE DAI call




On 08-04-2025 14:00, Sheetal . wrote:
> From: Sheetal <sheetal@...dia.com>
>
> The hw_params() function for BE DAI was being called multiple times due
> to an unnecessary SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_HW_PARAMS state check.
>
> Remove the redundant state check to ensure hw_params() is called only once
> per BE DAI configuration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sheetal <sheetal@...dia.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Update commit message as its not a fix.
> - Marked as RFC patch as it requires feedback from other users
>    perspective as well.
> - The patch is being sent separately as other patch is not RFC.
>
>   sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 1 -
>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> index d7f6d3a6d312..c73be27c4ecb 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> @@ -2123,7 +2123,6 @@ int dpcm_be_dai_hw_params(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int stream)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		if ((be->dpcm[stream].state != SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_OPEN) &&
> -		    (be->dpcm[stream].state != SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_HW_PARAMS) &&
>   		    (be->dpcm[stream].state != SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_HW_FREE))
>   			continue;
>   

Reviewed-by: Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>


Earlier Intel systems needed multiple hw_params() call and I am not sure 
if that still holds good. Given https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/28/1267, it 
would be good to get feedback from Intel and I have added few people 
based on the earlier discussion.