Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] ASoC: qcom: lpass-tx-macro: Add support for Bolero v4.0

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] ASoC: duplicate DAPM widget name causes probe failure
--

commit 954c8b1254dcb620c8fedc6341da23b5e08794fc
Author: Prasad Kumpatla <prasad.kumpatla@oss.qualcomm.com>

ASoC: qcom: lpass-tx-macro: Add support for Bolero v4.0

Hawi integrates the Bolero v4.0 TX macro, which extends the v9.x TX
macro with a port-select stage in the SWR microphone input path and an
adaptive filter (ADPT) block.

> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-tx-macro.c b/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-tx-macro.c
> index 6deaaabe43afa..b1eee16e968cb 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-tx-macro.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-tx-macro.c

[ ... ]

> +static const struct snd_soc_dapm_widget tx_macro_dapm_widgets_v15[] = {
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC0 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec0_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC1 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec1_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC2 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec2_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC3 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec3_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC4 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec4_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC5 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec5_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC6 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec6_mux_v9_3),
> +	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX("TX DEC7 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, &tx_dec7_mux_v9_3),

[Severity: High]
Does this code inadvertently duplicate the "TX DEC0 MUX" through "TX DEC7 MUX"
widgets?

The base tx_macro_dapm_widgets array already defines these same widget names
unconditionally, using SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX_E:

	SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX_E("TX DEC0 MUX", SND_SOC_NOPM,
			   TX_MACRO_DEC0, 0,
			   &tx_dec0_mux, tx_macro_enable_dec,
			   SND_SOC_DAPM_PRE_PMU | SND_SOC_DAPM_POST_PMU |
			   SND_SOC_DAPM_PRE_PMD | SND_SOC_DAPM_POST_PMD),

When ASoC attempts to create kcontrols for these extra widgets defined in
tx_macro_dapm_widgets_v15, won't snd_ctl_add() encounter two controls with the
exact same name and return -EBUSY, causing the sound card probe to fail?

Also, by using SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX instead of SND_SOC_DAPM_MUX_E here, it drops
the tx_macro_enable_dec event callback and hardcodes wshift to 0 instead of
using TX_MACRO_DECn. Will this break decimator enabling even if the probe
succeeded?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260922-add_shikra_support-v1-0-6c6cb6444caf@oss.qualcomm.com?part=7