Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] ASoC: re-introduce disable_route_checks flag for OF routes

[Mihalcea Laurentiu <laurentiumihalcea111@gmail.com>]

On 16.05.2025 04:22, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi Laurentiu
>
> Thank you for the patch
>
>> The "disable_route_checks" flag was previously removed via commit
>> dd2395162c07 ("ASoC: remove disable_route_checks") as it wasn't being
>> used anywhere.
>>
>> Re-introduce an OF-specific variant of the flag: "disable_of_route_checks"
>> as this will be used by audio-graph-card2.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiu.mihalcea@nxp.com>
>> ---
>>  include/sound/soc.h  |  1 +
>>  sound/soc/soc-core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/sound/soc.h b/include/sound/soc.h
>> index 1fffef311c41..e76da038557d 100644
>> --- a/include/sound/soc.h
>> +++ b/include/sound/soc.h
>> @@ -1077,6 +1077,7 @@ struct snd_soc_card {
>>  	unsigned int instantiated:1;
>>  	unsigned int topology_shortname_created:1;
>>  	unsigned int fully_routed:1;
>> +	unsigned int disable_of_route_checks:1;
>>  	unsigned int probed:1;
>>  	unsigned int component_chaining:1;
>>  	struct device *devres_dev;
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
>> index 67bebc339148..b14a52d6f550 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
>> @@ -2245,8 +2245,16 @@ static int snd_soc_bind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
>>  
>>  	ret = snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_routes,
>>  				      card->num_of_dapm_routes);
>> -	if (ret < 0)
>> -		goto probe_end;
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		if (card->disable_of_route_checks) {
>> +			ret = 0;
>> +			dev_info(card->dev,
>> +				 "%s: disable_of_route_checks set, ignoring errors on add_routes\n",
>> +				 __func__);
>> +		} else {
>> +			goto probe_end;
>> +		}
>> +	}
> commit dd2395162c07 removed flag from 3 parts (core x2 / topology), but
> this patch get back only one of them.


hm, so the rationale for introducing this OF-specific flag was because

audio-graph-card2 is the only user for this feature and this user only

needs to disable route checks for OF-based routes. On second thought

though I think it might be better to have this feature for all routes in case

someone might need it for non-OF routes as well? (if we go with the current

approach and it turns out someone needs it for non-OF routes you're going

to need more changes to support that)


>
> I think this flag check should be implemented in snd_soc_dapm_add_route()
> itself instead of each caller, but what do you think ?


good idea, I'll give it a try


>
> And maybe we want to use more easy-to-understand naming, like
> "ignore route check", etc ?


sure


>
> Thank you for your help !!
>
> Best regards
> ---
> Kuninori Morimoto