Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: mediatek: mt8192: support rt1015p_rt5682s

[Tzung-Bi Shih]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 03:29:24PM +0800, Jiaxin Yu wrote:
> From: Jiaxin Yu <jiaxin.yu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The environment didn't configure properly so that the header showed up.
See [1].

[1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email#Documentation/git-send-email.txt---fromltaddressgt

> diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8192/mt8192-mt6359-rt1015-rt5682.c b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8192/mt8192-mt6359-rt1015-rt5682.c
[...]
> +static struct snd_soc_card mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card = {
> +	.name = "mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s",
> +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +	.dai_link = mt8192_mt6359_dai_links,
> +	.num_links = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_dai_links),
> +	.controls = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_controls,
> +	.num_controls = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_controls),
> +	.dapm_widgets = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_widgets,
> +	.num_dapm_widgets = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_widgets),
> +	.dapm_routes = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_routes,
> +	.num_dapm_routes = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_routes),
> +};

Are the two cards only different from names
(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_card vs. mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card)?

> @@ -1150,6 +1177,52 @@ static int mt8192_mt6359_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  				dai_link->num_platforms =
>  					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s3_rt1015p_platforms);
>  			}
> +		} else if (strcmp(dai_link->name, "I2S8") == 0) {
> +			if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015_rt5682_card ||
> +			    card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_card) {
> +				dai_link->cpus = i2s8_rt5682_cpus;
> +				dai_link->num_cpus =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682_cpus);
> +				dai_link->codecs = i2s8_rt5682_codecs;
> +				dai_link->num_codecs =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682_codecs);
> +				dai_link->platforms = i2s8_rt5682_platforms;
> +				dai_link->num_platforms =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682_platforms);
> +			} else if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card) {
> +				dai_link->cpus = i2s8_rt5682s_cpus;
> +				dai_link->num_cpus =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682s_cpus);
> +				dai_link->codecs = i2s8_rt5682s_codecs;
> +				dai_link->num_codecs =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682s_codecs);
> +				dai_link->platforms = i2s8_rt5682s_platforms;
> +				dai_link->num_platforms =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682s_platforms);
> +			}
> +		} else if (strcmp(dai_link->name, "I2S9") == 0) {
> +			if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015_rt5682_card ||
> +			    card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_card) {
> +				dai_link->cpus = i2s9_rt5682_cpus;
> +				dai_link->num_cpus =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682_cpus);
> +				dai_link->codecs = i2s9_rt5682_codecs;
> +				dai_link->num_codecs =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682_codecs);
> +				dai_link->platforms = i2s9_rt5682_platforms;
> +				dai_link->num_platforms =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682_platforms);
> +			} else if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card) {
> +				dai_link->cpus = i2s9_rt5682s_cpus;
> +				dai_link->num_cpus =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682s_cpus);
> +				dai_link->codecs = i2s9_rt5682s_codecs;
> +				dai_link->num_codecs =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682s_codecs);
> +				dai_link->platforms = i2s9_rt5682s_platforms;
> +				dai_link->num_platforms =
> +					ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682s_platforms);
> +			}

After seeing the code, I am starting to wonder if the reuse is overkill.  If
they (RT5682 vs. RT5682S) only have some minor differences, probably it could
reuse more by:

SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(i2s8, ...
SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(i2s9, ...

...

if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card) {
        i2s8_codecs.name = RT5682S_DEV0_NAME;
        i2s8_codecs.dai_name = RT5682S_CODEC_DAI;
        ...
}

Or even uses of_device_is_compatible() if it would like to reuse the struct
snd_soc_card.