From: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
To: lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org
Cc: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, kai.vehmanen@linux.intel.com,
ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com,
yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com, pierre-louis.bossart@linux.dev,
shengjiu.wang@nxp.com
Subject: [RFC] ASoC: soc-pcm: Use conditional PCM hardware parameter initialization
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:37:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251020073750.27784-1-peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com> (raw)
Component drivers can prepare snd_pcm_hardware struct based on the hardware
capabilities which information should not be discarded.
Only touch the rates, channels_max and formats if they were left to 0,
otherwise keep the provided configuration intact for the parameter cross
checking decision.
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>
---
Hi,
this patch in essence extends the special casing of formats done by
083a25b18d6a ("ASoC: soc-pcm: fix hw->formats cleared by soc_pcm_hw_init() for dpcm")
Other parameters might have been set in the same way as the formats
and preserving these are equally important.
A case for this is SOF used with HDA codec (analog or more importantly, HDMI)
where the hw-> params are set based on the connected display/device and
should be preserved so we can report correct rate, format and channels
supported by the equipment.
If the hw-> parameters are left uninitialized then we still need to
set the UINT/ULLONG_MAX for the refining code to work.
This applies only for FE setup, in other cases we shall (as before) do
a full re-initialization.
I think this makes sense and I cannot think where this might flop, but
sent as RFC to see what people think.
Br,
Peter
sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
index 2c21fd528afd..e4bbcf4bcc9d 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
@@ -570,14 +570,31 @@ static void soc_pcm_apply_msb(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
soc_pcm_set_msb(substream, cpu_bits);
}
-static void soc_pcm_hw_init(struct snd_pcm_hardware *hw)
+static void soc_pcm_hw_init(struct snd_pcm_hardware *hw, bool preserve_config)
{
- hw->rates = UINT_MAX;
- hw->rate_min = 0;
- hw->rate_max = UINT_MAX;
- hw->channels_min = 0;
- hw->channels_max = UINT_MAX;
- hw->formats = ULLONG_MAX;
+ if (preserve_config) {
+ /*
+ * preserve the configuration which might be done by components
+ * Note: if the rates/rate_max/channels_max/formats are left to
+ * 0 we still need to initialize them for the parameter updates
+ * to work
+ */
+ if (!hw->rates)
+ hw->rates = UINT_MAX;
+ if (!hw->rate_max)
+ hw->rate_max = UINT_MAX;
+ if (!hw->channels_max)
+ hw->channels_max = UINT_MAX;
+ if (!hw->formats)
+ hw->formats = ULLONG_MAX;
+ } else {
+ hw->rates = UINT_MAX;
+ hw->rate_min = 0;
+ hw->rate_max = UINT_MAX;
+ hw->channels_min = 0;
+ hw->channels_max = UINT_MAX;
+ hw->formats = ULLONG_MAX;
+ }
}
static void soc_pcm_hw_update_rate(struct snd_pcm_hardware *hw,
@@ -626,7 +643,7 @@ int snd_soc_runtime_calc_hw(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd,
unsigned int cpu_chan_min = 0, cpu_chan_max = UINT_MAX;
int i;
- soc_pcm_hw_init(hw);
+ soc_pcm_hw_init(hw, false);
/* first calculate min/max only for CPUs in the DAI link */
for_each_rtd_cpu_dais(rtd, i, cpu_dai) {
@@ -1738,13 +1755,9 @@ static void dpcm_runtime_setup_fe(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
struct snd_pcm_hardware *hw = &runtime->hw;
struct snd_soc_dai *dai;
int stream = substream->stream;
- u64 formats = hw->formats;
int i;
- soc_pcm_hw_init(hw);
-
- if (formats)
- hw->formats &= formats;
+ soc_pcm_hw_init(hw, true);
for_each_rtd_cpu_dais(fe, i, dai) {
const struct snd_soc_pcm_stream *cpu_stream;
--
2.51.1.dirty
next reply other threads:[~2025-10-20 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-20 7:37 Peter Ujfalusi [this message]
2025-10-21 6:28 ` [RFC] ASoC: soc-pcm: Use conditional PCM hardware parameter initialization Péter Ujfalusi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251020073750.27784-1-peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com \
--to=peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=kai.vehmanen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-sound@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.dev \
--cc=ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=shengjiu.wang@nxp.com \
--cc=yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox