[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng]

The orginal code does not cover the case that one DAI such as codec
may be shared between other two DAIs(CPU).
When do symmetry checking, altough the codec DAI requires symmetry,
the two CPU DAIs may still be configured to run on different rates.

We change to check each DAI's state separately instead of only checking
the dai link to prevent this issue.

Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>

---
 include/sound/soc-dai.h |    3 ++
 include/sound/soc.h     |    2 -
 sound/soc/soc-pcm.c     |   64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/sound/soc-dai.h b/include/sound/soc-dai.h
index 5ad5f3a..844d4ed 100644
--- a/include/sound/soc-dai.h
+++ b/include/sound/soc-dai.h
@@ -242,6 +242,9 @@ struct snd_soc_dai {
 	void *playback_dma_data;
 	void *capture_dma_data;
 
+	/* Symmetry data */
+	unsigned int rate;
+
 	/* parent platform/codec */
 	union {
 		struct snd_soc_platform *platform;
diff --git a/include/sound/soc.h b/include/sound/soc.h
index 3fe658e..5449139 100644
--- a/include/sound/soc.h
+++ b/include/sound/soc.h
@@ -849,8 +849,6 @@ struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime  {
 	unsigned int complete:1;
 	unsigned int dev_registered:1;
 
-	/* Symmetry data - only valid if symmetry is being enforced */
-	unsigned int rate;
 	long pmdown_time;
 
 	/* runtime devices */
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
index 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
@@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
 	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
 	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
 	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
+	unsigned int race;
+	unsigned int force_rate;
 	int ret;
 
+	race = 0;
+	force_rate = 0;
+
 	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
 	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
 	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
 		return 0;
 
+	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
+	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
+		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
+			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
+		else
+			race = 1;
+	}
+
+	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
+	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
+		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
+			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
+		else
+			race = 1;
+	}
+
+	if (force_rate) {
+		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
+
+		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
+				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
+				force_rate, force_rate);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
+				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
+			return ret;
+		}
+	}
+
 	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously -
 	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
 	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
 	 */
-	if (!rtd->rate) {
+	if (race)
 		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
-			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
-		return 0;
-	}
-
-	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
-
-	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
-					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
-					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
-			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
-		return ret;
-	}
+			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
 	cpu_dai->active--;
 	codec_dai->active--;
 	codec->active--;
+	rtd->active--;
+
+	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
+	if (!cpu_dai->active)
+		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
 
-	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
-		rtd->rate = 0;
+	if (!codec_dai->active)
+		codec_dai->rate = 0;
 
 	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
 	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
@@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
 		}
 	}
 
-	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
+	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
+	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
+	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
 
 out:
 	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);
-- 
1.7.0.4

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng]

The orginal code does not cover the case that one DAI such as codec
may be shared between other two DAIs(CPU).
When do symmetry checking, altough the codec DAI requires symmetry,
the two CPU DAIs may still be configured to run on different rates.

We change to check each DAI's state separately instead of only checking
the dai link to prevent this issue.

Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>

---
 include/sound/soc-dai.h |    3 ++
 include/sound/soc.h     |    2 -
 sound/soc/soc-pcm.c     |   64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/sound/soc-dai.h b/include/sound/soc-dai.h
index 5ad5f3a..844d4ed 100644
--- a/include/sound/soc-dai.h
+++ b/include/sound/soc-dai.h
@@ -242,6 +242,9 @@ struct snd_soc_dai {
 	void *playback_dma_data;
 	void *capture_dma_data;
 
+	/* Symmetry data */
+	unsigned int rate;
+
 	/* parent platform/codec */
 	union {
 		struct snd_soc_platform *platform;
diff --git a/include/sound/soc.h b/include/sound/soc.h
index 3fe658e..5449139 100644
--- a/include/sound/soc.h
+++ b/include/sound/soc.h
@@ -849,8 +849,6 @@ struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime  {
 	unsigned int complete:1;
 	unsigned int dev_registered:1;
 
-	/* Symmetry data - only valid if symmetry is being enforced */
-	unsigned int rate;
 	long pmdown_time;
 
 	/* runtime devices */
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
index 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
@@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
 	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
 	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
 	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
+	unsigned int race;
+	unsigned int force_rate;
 	int ret;
 
+	race = 0;
+	force_rate = 0;
+
 	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
 	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
 	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
 		return 0;
 
+	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
+	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
+		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
+			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
+		else
+			race = 1;
+	}
+
+	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
+	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
+		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
+			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
+		else
+			race = 1;
+	}
+
+	if (force_rate) {
+		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
+
+		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
+				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
+				force_rate, force_rate);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
+				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
+			return ret;
+		}
+	}
+
 	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously -
 	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
 	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
 	 */
-	if (!rtd->rate) {
+	if (race)
 		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
-			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
-		return 0;
-	}
-
-	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
-
-	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
-					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
-					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
-			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
-		return ret;
-	}
+			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
 	cpu_dai->active--;
 	codec_dai->active--;
 	codec->active--;
+	rtd->active--;
+
+	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
+	if (!cpu_dai->active)
+		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
 
-	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
-		rtd->rate = 0;
+	if (!codec_dai->active)
+		codec_dai->rate = 0;
 
 	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
 	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
@@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
 		}
 	}
 
-	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
+	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
+	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
+	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
 
 out:
 	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org [mailto:linux-arm-
> kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Dong Aisheng
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
> Cc: lars@metafoo.de; s.hauer@pengutronix.de;
> broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; w.sang@pengutronix.de; lrg@ti.com;
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs
> separately
> 
> The orginal code does not cover the case that one DAI such as codec may
> be shared between other two DAIs(CPU).
> When do symmetry checking, altough the codec DAI requires symmetry, the
> two CPU DAIs may still be configured to run on different rates.
> 
> We change to check each DAI's state separately instead of only checking
> the dai link to prevent this issue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>
> Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
> 
> ---
>  include/sound/soc-dai.h |    3 ++
>  include/sound/soc.h     |    2 -
>  sound/soc/soc-pcm.c     |   64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> -----
>  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/sound/soc-dai.h b/include/sound/soc-dai.h index
> 5ad5f3a..844d4ed 100644
> --- a/include/sound/soc-dai.h
> +++ b/include/sound/soc-dai.h
> @@ -242,6 +242,9 @@ struct snd_soc_dai {
>  	void *playback_dma_data;
>  	void *capture_dma_data;
> 
> +	/* Symmetry data */
> +	unsigned int rate;
> +
>  	/* parent platform/codec */
>  	union {
>  		struct snd_soc_platform *platform;
> diff --git a/include/sound/soc.h b/include/sound/soc.h index
> 3fe658e..5449139 100644
> --- a/include/sound/soc.h
> +++ b/include/sound/soc.h
> @@ -849,8 +849,6 @@ struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime  {
>  	unsigned int complete:1;
>  	unsigned int dev_registered:1;
> 
> -	/* Symmetry data - only valid if symmetry is being enforced */
> -	unsigned int rate;
>  	long pmdown_time;
> 
>  	/* runtime devices */
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> +	unsigned int race;
> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>  	int ret;
> 
> +	race = 0;
> +	force_rate = 0;
> +
>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>  		return 0;
> 
> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
One concern is that I'm not sure about the original purpose of
dai_link->symmetric_rates, from the code visually, i guess that if the
dai link requires symmetry, the pcm open will force symmetry unconditionly
no matter whether CPU DAIs or Codec DAIs have symmetry constraints.
So i just follow that idea in this patch.
But it seems it may bring a little complex since we already have DAIs
Symmetry checking.

So i wonder can we remove the symmetric_rates for dai link?
Then we may just check DAIs symmetry to decide whether we should do
force symmetry.

> +	if (force_rate) {
> +		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> +
> +		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> +				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> +				force_rate, force_rate);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> +				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n",
> ret);
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously
> -
>  	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
>  	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
>  	 */
> -	if (!rtd->rate) {
> +	if (race)
>  		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
> -			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
> -	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> -
> -	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> -					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> -					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> -			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> 
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream
> *substream)
>  	cpu_dai->active--;
>  	codec_dai->active--;
>  	codec->active--;
> +	rtd->active--;
> +
> +	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
> +	if (!cpu_dai->active)
> +		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
> 
> -	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
> -		rtd->rate = 0;
> +	if (!codec_dai->active)
> +		codec_dai->rate = 0;
> 
>  	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
>  	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
> @@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream
> *substream,
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> -	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
> +	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> 
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);
> --
> 1.7.0.4
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org [mailto:linux-arm-
> kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Dong Aisheng
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org
> Cc: lars at metafoo.de; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
> broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; w.sang at pengutronix.de; lrg at ti.com;
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs
> separately
> 
> The orginal code does not cover the case that one DAI such as codec may
> be shared between other two DAIs(CPU).
> When do symmetry checking, altough the codec DAI requires symmetry, the
> two CPU DAIs may still be configured to run on different rates.
> 
> We change to check each DAI's state separately instead of only checking
> the dai link to prevent this issue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>
> Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
> 
> ---
>  include/sound/soc-dai.h |    3 ++
>  include/sound/soc.h     |    2 -
>  sound/soc/soc-pcm.c     |   64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> -----
>  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/sound/soc-dai.h b/include/sound/soc-dai.h index
> 5ad5f3a..844d4ed 100644
> --- a/include/sound/soc-dai.h
> +++ b/include/sound/soc-dai.h
> @@ -242,6 +242,9 @@ struct snd_soc_dai {
>  	void *playback_dma_data;
>  	void *capture_dma_data;
> 
> +	/* Symmetry data */
> +	unsigned int rate;
> +
>  	/* parent platform/codec */
>  	union {
>  		struct snd_soc_platform *platform;
> diff --git a/include/sound/soc.h b/include/sound/soc.h index
> 3fe658e..5449139 100644
> --- a/include/sound/soc.h
> +++ b/include/sound/soc.h
> @@ -849,8 +849,6 @@ struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime  {
>  	unsigned int complete:1;
>  	unsigned int dev_registered:1;
> 
> -	/* Symmetry data - only valid if symmetry is being enforced */
> -	unsigned int rate;
>  	long pmdown_time;
> 
>  	/* runtime devices */
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> +	unsigned int race;
> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>  	int ret;
> 
> +	race = 0;
> +	force_rate = 0;
> +
>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>  		return 0;
> 
> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
One concern is that I'm not sure about the original purpose of
dai_link->symmetric_rates, from the code visually, i guess that if the
dai link requires symmetry, the pcm open will force symmetry unconditionly
no matter whether CPU DAIs or Codec DAIs have symmetry constraints.
So i just follow that idea in this patch.
But it seems it may bring a little complex since we already have DAIs
Symmetry checking.

So i wonder can we remove the symmetric_rates for dai link?
Then we may just check DAIs symmetry to decide whether we should do
force symmetry.

> +	if (force_rate) {
> +		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> +
> +		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> +				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> +				force_rate, force_rate);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> +				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n",
> ret);
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously
> -
>  	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
>  	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
>  	 */
> -	if (!rtd->rate) {
> +	if (race)
>  		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
> -			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
> -	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> -
> -	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> -					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> -					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> -			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> 
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream
> *substream)
>  	cpu_dai->active--;
>  	codec_dai->active--;
>  	codec->active--;
> +	rtd->active--;
> +
> +	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
> +	if (!cpu_dai->active)
> +		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
> 
> -	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
> -		rtd->rate = 0;
> +	if (!codec_dai->active)
> +		codec_dai->rate = 0;
> 
>  	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
>  	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
> @@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream
> *substream,
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> -	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
> +	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> 
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);
> --
> 1.7.0.4
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> [...]
>  	/* runtime devices */
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> index 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> +	unsigned int race;
> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	race = 0;
> +	force_rate = 0;
> +
>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>  		return 0;
>
> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {

parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression. Makes it
easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.

> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
> +

If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if both are
already active and are running at different rates that there will be no valid
rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this function to take the dai as an
parameter and call it twice, once for the codec_dai and once for the cpu_dai.
This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.


> +	if (force_rate) {
> +		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> +
> +		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> +				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> +				force_rate, force_rate);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> +				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously -
>  	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
>  	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
>  	 */
> -	if (!rtd->rate) {
> +	if (race)
>  		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
> -			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
> -	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> -
> -	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> -					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> -					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> -			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>  	cpu_dai->active--;
>  	codec_dai->active--;
>  	codec->active--;
> +	rtd->active--;

I guess the line above is a leftover from the previous patch.

> +
> +	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
> +	if (!cpu_dai->active)
> +		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
>  
> -	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
> -		rtd->rate = 0;
> +	if (!codec_dai->active)
> +		codec_dai->rate = 0;
>  
>  	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
>  	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
> @@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
> +	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
>  
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> [...]
>  	/* runtime devices */
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> index 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> +	unsigned int race;
> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	race = 0;
> +	force_rate = 0;
> +
>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>  		return 0;
>
> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {

parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression. Makes it
easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.

> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> +		else
> +			race = 1;
> +	}
> +

If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if both are
already active and are running at different rates that there will be no valid
rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this function to take the dai as an
parameter and call it twice, once for the codec_dai and once for the cpu_dai.
This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.


> +	if (force_rate) {
> +		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> +
> +		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> +				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> +				force_rate, force_rate);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> +				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously -
>  	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
>  	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
>  	 */
> -	if (!rtd->rate) {
> +	if (race)
>  		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
> -			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
> -	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> -
> -	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> -					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> -					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> -			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>  	cpu_dai->active--;
>  	codec_dai->active--;
>  	codec->active--;
> +	rtd->active--;

I guess the line above is a leftover from the previous patch.

> +
> +	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
> +	if (!cpu_dai->active)
> +		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
>  
> -	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
> -		rtd->rate = 0;
> +	if (!codec_dai->active)
> +		codec_dai->rate = 0;
>  
>  	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
>  	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
> @@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
> +	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> +	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
>  
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);

RE: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@metafoo.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg@ti.com; s.hauer@pengutronix.de;
> w.sang@pengutronix.de
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
> DAIs separately
> 
> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > [...]
> >  	/* runtime devices */
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
> > 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> > --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> > @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> >  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> >  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
> >  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> > +	unsigned int race;
> > +	unsigned int force_rate;
> >  	int ret;
> >
> > +	race = 0;
> > +	force_rate = 0;
> > +
> >  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
> >  		return 0;
> >
> > +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> > +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> 
> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression. Makes
> it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
Thanks for reminder, I will take it.

> > +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> > +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> > +		else
> > +			race = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> > +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> > +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> > +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> > +		else
> > +			race = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this function
> to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for the codec_dai
> and once for the cpu_dai.
> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the question
is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for the same substream
two times?

I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are active.
Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
 
> > +	if (force_rate) {
> > +		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> > +
> > +		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> > +				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> > +				force_rate, force_rate);
> > +		if (ret < 0) {
> > +			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> > +				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n",
> ret);
> > +			return ret;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously
> -
> >  	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
> >  	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (!rtd->rate) {
> > +	if (race)
> >  		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
> > -			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> > -		return 0;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> > -
> > -	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> > -					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> > -					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
> > -	if (ret < 0) {
> > -		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> > -			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> > -		return ret;
> > -	}
> > +			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> >
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream
> *substream)
> >  	cpu_dai->active--;
> >  	codec_dai->active--;
> >  	codec->active--;
> > +	rtd->active--;
> 
> I guess the line above is a leftover from the previous patch.
Yes, sorry for the mistake.

> > +
> > +	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
> > +	if (!cpu_dai->active)
> > +		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
> >
> > -	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
> > -		rtd->rate = 0;
> > +	if (!codec_dai->active)
> > +		codec_dai->rate = 0;
> >
> >  	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
> >  	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
> > @@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >
> > -	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
> > +	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
> > +	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> > +	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> >
> >  out:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);
> 

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars at metafoo.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg at ti.com; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
> w.sang at pengutronix.de
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
> DAIs separately
> 
> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > [...]
> >  	/* runtime devices */
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
> > 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> > --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> > @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> >  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> >  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
> >  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> > +	unsigned int race;
> > +	unsigned int force_rate;
> >  	int ret;
> >
> > +	race = 0;
> > +	force_rate = 0;
> > +
> >  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
> >  		return 0;
> >
> > +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> > +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> 
> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression. Makes
> it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
Thanks for reminder, I will take it.

> > +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> > +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> > +		else
> > +			race = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> > +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> > +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> > +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> > +		else
> > +			race = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this function
> to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for the codec_dai
> and once for the cpu_dai.
> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the question
is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for the same substream
two times?

I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are active.
Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
 
> > +	if (force_rate) {
> > +		dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> > +
> > +		ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> > +				SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> > +				force_rate, force_rate);
> > +		if (ret < 0) {
> > +			dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> > +				"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n",
> ret);
> > +			return ret;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	/* This can happen if multiple streams are starting simultaneously
> -
> >  	 * the second can need to get its constraints before the first has
> >  	 * picked a rate.  Complain and allow the application to carry on.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (!rtd->rate) {
> > +	if (race)
> >  		dev_warn(&rtd->dev,
> > -			 "Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> > -		return 0;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	dev_dbg(&rtd->dev, "Symmetry forces %dHz rate\n", rtd->rate);
> > -
> > -	ret = snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime,
> > -					   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> > -					   rtd->rate, rtd->rate);
> > -	if (ret < 0) {
> > -		dev_err(&rtd->dev,
> > -			"Unable to apply rate symmetry constraint: %d\n", ret);
> > -		return ret;
> > -	}
> > +			"Not enforcing symmetric_rates due to race\n");
> >
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -287,9 +308,14 @@ static int soc_pcm_close(struct snd_pcm_substream
> *substream)
> >  	cpu_dai->active--;
> >  	codec_dai->active--;
> >  	codec->active--;
> > +	rtd->active--;
> 
> I guess the line above is a leftover from the previous patch.
Yes, sorry for the mistake.

> > +
> > +	/* clear the corresponding DAIs rate when inactive */
> > +	if (!cpu_dai->active)
> > +		cpu_dai->rate = 0;
> >
> > -	if (!cpu_dai->active && !codec_dai->active)
> > -		rtd->rate = 0;
> > +	if (!codec_dai->active)
> > +		codec_dai->rate = 0;
> >
> >  	/* Muting the DAC suppresses artifacts caused during digital
> >  	 * shutdown, for example from stopping clocks.
> > @@ -447,7 +473,9 @@ static int soc_pcm_hw_params(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >
> > -	rtd->rate = params_rate(params);
> > +	/* store the rate for each DAIs */
> > +	cpu_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> > +	codec_dai->rate = params_rate(params);
> >
> >  out:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&rtd->pcm_mutex);
> 

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 08/26/2011 03:17 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@metafoo.de]
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
>> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
>> Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
>> broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg@ti.com; s.hauer@pengutronix.de;
>> w.sang@pengutronix.de
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
>> DAIs separately
>>
>> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>  	/* runtime devices */
>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
>>> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
>>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
>> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>>>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
>>> +	unsigned int race;
>>> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>>>  	int ret;
>>>
>>> +	race = 0;
>>> +	force_rate = 0;
>>> +
>>>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>>>  		return 0;
>>>
>>> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>
>> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression. Makes
>> it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
> Thanks for reminder, I will take it.
> 
>>> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
>>> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
>>> +		else
>>> +			race = 1;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
>>> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
>>> +		else
>>> +			race = 1;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>
>> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
>> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
>> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
>> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this function
>> to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for the codec_dai
>> and once for the cpu_dai.
>> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
> I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the question
> is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for the same substream
> two times?
> 
> I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are active.
> Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
>  

This might be some rather obscure and theoretical setup but image the following
situation:

A   C
 \ / \
  B   D

The link between A and B and the link between C and D are active and running at
different rates. Activating the link between C and B should fail, since both
are already active and are running at different rates.

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 08/26/2011 03:17 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars at metafoo.de]
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
>> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
>> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
>> broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg at ti.com; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
>> w.sang at pengutronix.de
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
>> DAIs separately
>>
>> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>  	/* runtime devices */
>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
>>> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
>>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
>> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>>>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
>>> +	unsigned int race;
>>> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>>>  	int ret;
>>>
>>> +	race = 0;
>>> +	force_rate = 0;
>>> +
>>>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>>>  		return 0;
>>>
>>> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>
>> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression. Makes
>> it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
> Thanks for reminder, I will take it.
> 
>>> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
>>> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
>>> +		else
>>> +			race = 1;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
>>> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
>>> +		else
>>> +			race = 1;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>
>> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
>> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
>> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
>> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this function
>> to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for the codec_dai
>> and once for the cpu_dai.
>> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
> I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the question
> is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for the same substream
> two times?
> 
> I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are active.
> Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
>  

This might be some rather obscure and theoretical setup but image the following
situation:

A   C
 \ / \
  B   D

The link between A and B and the link between C and D are active and running at
different rates. Activating the link between C and B should fail, since both
are already active and are running at different rates.

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@metafoo.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:33 PM
> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg@ti.com; s.hauer@pengutronix.de;
> w.sang@pengutronix.de
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
> DAIs separately
> 
> On 08/26/2011 03:17 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@metafoo.de]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
> >> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> >> Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org;
> >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> >> broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg@ti.com;
> >> s.hauer@pengutronix.de; w.sang@pengutronix.de
> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for
> >> each DAIs separately
> >>
> >> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>  	/* runtime devices */
> >>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
> >>> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> >>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> >>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> >>> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
> >> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> >>>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> >>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
> >>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> >>> +	unsigned int race;
> >>> +	unsigned int force_rate;
> >>>  	int ret;
> >>>
> >>> +	race = 0;
> >>> +	force_rate = 0;
> >>> +
> >>>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >>>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >>>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
> >>>  		return 0;
> >>>
> >>> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> >>> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> >>
> >> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression.
> >> Makes it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
> > Thanks for reminder, I will take it.
> >
> >>> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> >>> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> >>> +		else
> >>> +			race = 1;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> >>> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> >>> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> >>> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> >>> +		else
> >>> +			race = 1;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>
> >> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
> >> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
> >> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
> >> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this
> >> function to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for
> >> the codec_dai and once for the cpu_dai.
> >> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
> > I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the
> > question is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for
> > the same substream two times?
> >
> > I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are
> active.
> > Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
> >
> 
> This might be some rather obscure and theoretical setup but image the
> following
> situation:
> 
> A   C
>  \ / \
>   B   D
> 
> The link between A and B and the link between C and D are active and
> running at different rates. Activating the link between C and B should
> fail, since both are already active and are running at different rates.
> 
Yes, it's a theoretical case.
If we add the checking as below:
If (cpu_dai->active && codec_dai->active
    && cpu_dai->rate != codec_dai->rate)
	dev_err(...);
I guess this may not work since that it's possible when DAI is active while
it's rate is still not set.

Taking account of this case may bring a bit more complexity.
Do you have any other suggestion? 
Can we prevent it happen in machine layer?

Regards
Dong Aisheng

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars at metafoo.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:33 PM
> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg at ti.com; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
> w.sang at pengutronix.de
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
> DAIs separately
> 
> On 08/26/2011 03:17 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars at metafoo.de]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
> >> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> >> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org;
> >> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> >> broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg at ti.com;
> >> s.hauer at pengutronix.de; w.sang at pengutronix.de
> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for
> >> each DAIs separately
> >>
> >> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>  	/* runtime devices */
> >>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
> >>> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
> >>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> >>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
> >>> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
> >> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> >>>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> >>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
> >>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
> >>> +	unsigned int race;
> >>> +	unsigned int force_rate;
> >>>  	int ret;
> >>>
> >>> +	race = 0;
> >>> +	force_rate = 0;
> >>> +
> >>>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >>>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
> >>>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
> >>>  		return 0;
> >>>
> >>> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> >>> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> >>
> >> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression.
> >> Makes it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
> > Thanks for reminder, I will take it.
> >
> >>> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
> >>> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
> >>> +		else
> >>> +			race = 1;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
> >>> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
> >>> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
> >>> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
> >>> +		else
> >>> +			race = 1;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>
> >> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
> >> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
> >> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
> >> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this
> >> function to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for
> >> the codec_dai and once for the cpu_dai.
> >> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
> > I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the
> > question is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for
> > the same substream two times?
> >
> > I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are
> active.
> > Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
> >
> 
> This might be some rather obscure and theoretical setup but image the
> following
> situation:
> 
> A   C
>  \ / \
>   B   D
> 
> The link between A and B and the link between C and D are active and
> running at different rates. Activating the link between C and B should
> fail, since both are already active and are running at different rates.
> 
Yes, it's a theoretical case.
If we add the checking as below:
If (cpu_dai->active && codec_dai->active
    && cpu_dai->rate != codec_dai->rate)
	dev_err(...);
I guess this may not work since that it's possible when DAI is active while
it's rate is still not set.

Taking account of this case may bring a bit more complexity.
Do you have any other suggestion? 
Can we prevent it happen in machine layer?

Regards
Dong Aisheng

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 08/26/2011 03:57 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@metafoo.de]
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:33 PM
>> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
>> Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
>> broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg@ti.com; s.hauer@pengutronix.de;
>> w.sang@pengutronix.de
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
>> DAIs separately
>>
>> On 08/26/2011 03:17 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@metafoo.de]
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
>>>> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
>>>> Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org;
>>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
>>>> broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg@ti.com;
>>>> s.hauer@pengutronix.de; w.sang@pengutronix.de
>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for
>>>> each DAIs separately
>>>>
>>>> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>  	/* runtime devices */
>>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
>>>>> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
>>>>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>>>> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
>>>> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>>>>>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>>>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>>>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
>>>>> +	unsigned int race;
>>>>> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>>>>>  	int ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> +	race = 0;
>>>>> +	force_rate = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>>>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>>>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>>>>>  		return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>>>> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>>>
>>>> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression.
>>>> Makes it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
>>> Thanks for reminder, I will take it.
>>>
>>>>> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
>>>>> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
>>>>> +		else
>>>>> +			race = 1;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>>>> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>>>> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
>>>>> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
>>>>> +		else
>>>>> +			race = 1;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
>>>> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
>>>> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
>>>> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this
>>>> function to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for
>>>> the codec_dai and once for the cpu_dai.
>>>> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
>>> I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the
>>> question is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for
>>> the same substream two times?
>>>
>>> I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are
>> active.
>>> Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
>>>
>>
>> This might be some rather obscure and theoretical setup but image the
>> following
>> situation:
>>
>> A   C
>>  \ / \
>>   B   D
>>
>> The link between A and B and the link between C and D are active and
>> running at different rates. Activating the link between C and B should
>> fail, since both are already active and are running at different rates.
>>
> Yes, it's a theoretical case.
> If we add the checking as below:
> If (cpu_dai->active && codec_dai->active
>     && cpu_dai->rate != codec_dai->rate)
> 	dev_err(...);
> I guess this may not work since that it's possible when DAI is active while
> it's rate is still not set.
> 
> Taking account of this case may bring a bit more complexity.
> Do you have any other suggestion? 
> Can we prevent it happen in machine layer?

Actually I think it will reduce code complexity, since it allows us to apply
the rate constraint for each dai independent of the other. And there should be
no harm in calling snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax twice with the same rate.

Just add a second parameter to soc_pcm_apply_symmetry taking a dai and call it
for each dai like.

	if (cpu_dai->active) {
		ret = soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(substream, cpu_dai);
		if (ret != 0)
			goto config_err;
	}
	if (codec_dai->active) {
		ret = soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(substream, codec_dai);
		if (ret != 0)
			goto config_err;
	}

The downside of this might be though that we can get the race warning twice.

[RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each DAIs separately

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 08/26/2011 03:57 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars at metafoo.de]
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:33 PM
>> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
>> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
>> broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg at ti.com; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
>> w.sang at pengutronix.de
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for each
>> DAIs separately
>>
>> On 08/26/2011 03:17 PM, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars at metafoo.de]
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:24 PM
>>>> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
>>>> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org;
>>>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
>>>> broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; lrg at ti.com;
>>>> s.hauer at pengutronix.de; w.sang at pengutronix.de
>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ASoC: soc-core: symmetry checking for
>>>> each DAIs separately
>>>>
>>>> On 08/26/2011 11:35 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>  	/* runtime devices */
>>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c index
>>>>> 1aee9fc..3f7ded7 100644
>>>>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>>>> @@ -32,33 +32,54 @@ static int soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(struct
>>>> snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>>>>>  	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>>>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai;
>>>>>  	struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
>>>>> +	unsigned int race;
>>>>> +	unsigned int force_rate;
>>>>>  	int ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> +	race = 0;
>>>>> +	force_rate = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>>  	if (!codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>>>  	    !cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates &&
>>>>>  	    !rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates)
>>>>>  		return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> +	if (codec_dai->active && codec_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>>>> +	     codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>>>
>>>> parenthesis, please, when mixing && and || in the same expression.
>>>> Makes it easier to comprehend and protects against accidental mistakes.
>>> Thanks for reminder, I will take it.
>>>
>>>>> +		if (codec_dai->rate != 0)
>>>>> +			force_rate = codec_dai->rate;
>>>>> +		else
>>>>> +			race = 1;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (cpu_dai->active && cpu_dai->driver->symmetric_rates ||
>>>>> +	    codec_dai->active && rtd->dai_link->symmetric_rates) {
>>>>> +		if (cpu_dai->rate != 0)
>>>>> +			force_rate = cpu_dai->rate;
>>>>> +		else
>>>>> +			race = 1;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> If both dais are active and require symmetry we should call
>>>> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for both rates. This will ensure that if
>>>> both are already active and are running at different rates that there
>>>> will be no valid rate for the new pcm stream. Maybe extend this
>>>> function to take the dai as an parameter and call it twice, once for
>>>> the codec_dai and once for the cpu_dai.
>>>> This would allow to keep the current structure of the function.
>>> I was doing like the way as you said before, however, I found the
>>> question is that do we have to call snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax for
>>> the same substream two times?
>>>
>>> I just thought they should be running at the same rate if both are
>> active.
>>> Can you help point out in which case they may be different?
>>>
>>
>> This might be some rather obscure and theoretical setup but image the
>> following
>> situation:
>>
>> A   C
>>  \ / \
>>   B   D
>>
>> The link between A and B and the link between C and D are active and
>> running at different rates. Activating the link between C and B should
>> fail, since both are already active and are running at different rates.
>>
> Yes, it's a theoretical case.
> If we add the checking as below:
> If (cpu_dai->active && codec_dai->active
>     && cpu_dai->rate != codec_dai->rate)
> 	dev_err(...);
> I guess this may not work since that it's possible when DAI is active while
> it's rate is still not set.
> 
> Taking account of this case may bring a bit more complexity.
> Do you have any other suggestion? 
> Can we prevent it happen in machine layer?

Actually I think it will reduce code complexity, since it allows us to apply
the rate constraint for each dai independent of the other. And there should be
no harm in calling snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax twice with the same rate.

Just add a second parameter to soc_pcm_apply_symmetry taking a dai and call it
for each dai like.

	if (cpu_dai->active) {
		ret = soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(substream, cpu_dai);
		if (ret != 0)
			goto config_err;
	}
	if (codec_dai->active) {
		ret = soc_pcm_apply_symmetry(substream, codec_dai);
		if (ret != 0)
			goto config_err;
	}

The downside of this might be though that we can get the race warning twice.