Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Fix dapm_is_shared_kcontrol so everything isn't shared

Jarkko Nikula
2011-05-25T07:01:45Z

On Tue, 24 May 2011 17:12:01 -0600
Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote:

> Commit af46800 ("ASoC: Implement mux control sharing") introduced
> function dapm_is_shared_kcontrol.
>
> When this function returns true, the naming of DAPM controls is derived
> from the kcontrol_new. Otherwise, the name comes from the widget (and
> possibly a widget's naming prefix).
>
> A bug in the implementation of dapm_is_shared_kcontrol made it return 1
> in all cases. Hence, that commit caused a change in control naming for
> all controls instead of just shared controls.
>
> Specifically, a control is always considered shared because it is always
> compared against itself. Solve this by never comparing against the widget
> containing the control being created.
>
> I tested that with the Tegra WM8903 driver:
> * Shared is now mostly 0 as expected, and sometimes 1.
> * The expected controls are still generated after this change.
>
> Howwever, I don't have any systems that have a widget/control naming
> prefix, so I can't test that aspect.
>
> Reported-by: Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>
> Root-caused-by: Jarkko Nikula <jhnikula@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> ---
> sound/soc/soc-dapm.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c b/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c
> index 456617e..5397699 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c
> @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ static int dapm_connect_mixer(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> }
>
> static int dapm_is_shared_kcontrol(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> + struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *kcontrolw,
> const struct snd_kcontrol_new *kcontrol_new,
> struct snd_kcontrol **kcontrol)
> {
> @@ -334,6 +335,8 @@ static int dapm_is_shared_kcontrol(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> *kcontrol = NULL;
>
> list_for_each_entry(w, &dapm->card->widgets, list) {
> + if (w == kcontrolw)
> + continue;

Hmm.. it seems this test is not enough with tlv320aic3x.c. It still
classifies a lot of kcontrols to be shared. Will keep hunting.

--
Jarkko