Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: dpcm: don't do hw_param when BE hasdone hw_param

[Nenghua Cao]

On 01/10/2014 08:01 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:59:42 +0800,
> Nenghua Cao wrote:
>>
>> On 01/10/2014 07:47 PM, Liam Girdwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 19:21 +0800, Nenghua Cao wrote:
>>>> On 01/10/2014 06:55 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>>>> [Corrected mail addresses of both Mark and Liam]
>>>>>
>>>> Hi, Takashi:
>>>> Thanks for correcting my mistake.
>>>>> At Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:36:35 +0800,
>>>>> Nenghua Cao wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Nenghua Cao <nhcao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     It fixes the following case:
>>>>>>     Two FEs connects the same BE; FE1 & BE path has been opened and hw_paramed.
>>>>>> At this momment, FE2 & BE path is being opened and hw_paramed. The BE
>>>>>> dai will do hw_param again even if it has done hw_param. It is not
>>>>>> reasonable.
>>>>>> FE1------------>BE
>>>>>> FE2-------------^
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens if FE2 tries to set up an incompatible hw_params?
>>>>> (Through a quick glance, it won't work properly well, too, though...)
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The intention in this case would be for the DSP FE driver to determine
>>> if it can perform format conversion or SRC to the running BE. If the DSP
>>> cant do the conversion then it should fail.
>>>
>>>> If FE2 uses an incompatible param, it will make FE1 doesn't work. Maybe
>>>> FE2 works well.
>>>> If FE2 uses the same param, BE hw_param function will be called twice
>>>> (This is the most happening case).
>>>> So we can't get benefits from it.
>>>
>>> We shouldn't be calling the hw_params() on the BE when it's already
>>> configured in this case. So this seems like a bug. However :-
>>>
>>> /* only allow hw_params() if no connected FEs are running */
>>> 		if (!snd_soc_dpcm_can_be_params(fe, be, 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;
>>>
>>> We do do a test to check if any connected FEs are running (i.e.
>>> triggered) prior to calling hw_params() on the BE. Can you confirm if
>>> the FE was running in your case ?
>>>
>> Hi, Liam:
>>    I am so glad to hear from you. In my case, FE1 has called hw_param,
>> and before FE1 calls prepare/trigger function, the scheduler switches to
>> do FE2 open, hw_param. So hw_param is called twice.
> 
> So basically the current implementation is racy about this.
> 
> OTOH, not calling hw_params twice is also buggy.  hw_params may be
> called multiple times without hw_free for the same stream if user
> wants to re-setup/update the parameters.  OSS emulation layer does it,
> for example.
>
Hi, Takashi

  On current alsa framework, the hw_param can be called multiple time.
Here, FE1 also can call do it. But here we should add constraint to
avoid another FE call it due to FE1 has choose it priority.

> 
> Takashi
> 
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Liam
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Takashi
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nenghua Cao <nhcao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  sound/soc/soc-pcm.c |    1 -
>>>>>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>>>>> index 891b9a9..ec07e37 100644
>>>>>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>>>>> @@ -1339,7 +1339,6 @@ static 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;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 1.7.0.4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Alsa-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/