[PATCH 0/2] ASoC: tidyup card rebind functions

[PATCH 0/2] ASoC: tidyup card rebind functions

[Kuninori Morimoto]

Hi Mar, Cezary

Now, all user can use deferrable card binding.

Now soc-core.c file has handling Card/Component/DAI randomly, so I would
like to capsuling these into soc-card/dai/component.c files.

So, I would like to handle Card related things in xx_card_xx() function.
It is easy to move functions when capsuling.

This patch tidyup deferrable card binding. No functional change.

Kuninori Morimoto (2):
  ASoC: soc-core: add soc_rebind_card()
  ASoC: soc-core: handle card->list in snd_soc_unbind_card()

 sound/soc/soc-core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 1/2] ASoC: soc-core: add soc_rebind_card()

[Kuninori Morimoto]

snd_soc_add_component() try to rebind Card. Which can be done
as Card function. Let's add soc_rebind_card() for it.

Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
---
 sound/soc/soc-core.c | 12 +++++++++---
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
index 691fd7fc5030d..ae8467d88978e 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
@@ -2197,6 +2197,14 @@ static int call_soc_bind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
 	return snd_soc_bind_card(card);
 }
 
+static void soc_rebind_card(void)
+{
+	struct snd_soc_card *card, *c;
+
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(card, c, &unbind_card_list, list)
+		call_soc_bind_card(card);
+}
+
 /* probes a new socdev */
 static int soc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
@@ -2708,7 +2716,6 @@ int snd_soc_add_component(struct snd_soc_component *component,
 			  struct snd_soc_dai_driver *dai_drv,
 			  int num_dai)
 {
-	struct snd_soc_card *card, *c;
 	int ret;
 	int i;
 	guard(mutex)(&client_mutex);
@@ -2736,8 +2743,7 @@ int snd_soc_add_component(struct snd_soc_component *component,
 	/* see for_each_component */
 	list_add(&component->list, &component_list);
 
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(card, c, &unbind_card_list, list)
-		call_soc_bind_card(card);
+	soc_rebind_card();
 
 err_cleanup:
 	if (ret < 0)
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: soc-core: add soc_rebind_card()

[Rojewski, Cezary]

On 5/13/2026 3:48 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> snd_soc_add_component() try to rebind Card. Which can be done
> as Card function. Let's add soc_rebind_card() for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
> ---
>   sound/soc/soc-core.c | 12 +++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> index 691fd7fc5030d..ae8467d88978e 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> @@ -2197,6 +2197,14 @@ static int call_soc_bind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
>   	return snd_soc_bind_card(card);
>   }
>   
> +static void soc_rebind_card(void)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_card *card, *c;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(card, c, &unbind_card_list, list)
> +		call_soc_bind_card(card);
> +}
> +
>   /* probes a new socdev */
>   static int soc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   {
> @@ -2708,7 +2716,6 @@ int snd_soc_add_component(struct snd_soc_component *component,
>   			  struct snd_soc_dai_driver *dai_drv,
>   			  int num_dai)
>   {
> -	struct snd_soc_card *card, *c;
>   	int ret;
>   	int i;
>   	guard(mutex)(&client_mutex);
> @@ -2736,8 +2743,7 @@ int snd_soc_add_component(struct snd_soc_component *component,
>   	/* see for_each_component */
>   	list_add(&component->list, &component_list);
>   
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(card, c, &unbind_card_list, list)
> -		call_soc_bind_card(card);
> +	soc_rebind_card();

The naming is off.  Clearly, we're not dealing with a card - many cards 
could be bound here.

As previous patches related to the subject removed the rebind_card() 
function, I'm not sure we want it back.  Perhaps a readable macro instead?

#define for_each_unbound_card(card, c)
	list_for_each_entry_safe(card, c, &unbind_card_list, list)

>   
>   err_cleanup:
>   	if (ret < 0)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: soc-core: add soc_rebind_card()

[Kuninori Morimoto]

Hi Rojewski

Thank you for your review

> > +	soc_rebind_card();
> 
> The naming is off.  Clearly, we're not dealing with a card - many cards 
> could be bound here.
>
> As previous patches related to the subject removed the rebind_card() 
> function, I'm not sure we want it back.  Perhaps a readable macro instead?
> 
> #define for_each_unbound_card(card, c)
> 	list_for_each_entry_safe(card, c, &unbind_card_list, list)

Biggest concern here is that snd_soc_add_component() will goes to
soc-component.c, and it can't use "unbind_card_list" which will goto
soc-card.c as local variable (because of capsuling).

So, using #define is not enough. We would like to makes it as
"card function", and call it from soc-component.c.

How about "soc_try_bind_card_all()" or something ?

Note is that I would like to rename card function as "[snd_]soc_card_xxx()"
when it goes to soc-card.c
ex)
	soc_bind_card()		-> soc_card_bind()
	soc_unbind_card()	-> soc_card_unbind()
	soc_try_bind_card_all()	-> soc_card_try_bind_all()

Thank you for your help !!

Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto

[PATCH 2/2] ASoC: soc-core: handle card->list in snd_soc_unbind_card()

[Kuninori Morimoto]

snd_soc_bind_card()   is handling card->list inside, but
snd_soc_unbind_card() is handling it in outside.
Let's handle it inside.

Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
---
 sound/soc/soc-core.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
index ae8467d88978e..8b2269ba67c3a 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
@@ -1990,12 +1990,18 @@ static void soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct snd_soc_card *card)
 	}
 }
 
-static void snd_soc_unbind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
+static void snd_soc_unbind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card, bool add_to_list)
 {
 	if (snd_soc_card_is_instantiated(card)) {
 		card->instantiated = false;
 		soc_cleanup_card_resources(card);
+
+		if (add_to_list)
+			list_add(&card->list, &unbind_card_list);
 	}
+
+	if (!add_to_list)
+		list_del(&card->list);
 }
 
 static int snd_soc_bind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
@@ -2439,8 +2445,7 @@ void snd_soc_unregister_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
 {
 	guard(mutex)(&client_mutex);
 
-	snd_soc_unbind_card(card);
-	list_del(&card->list);
+	snd_soc_unbind_card(card, false);
 
 	dev_dbg(card->dev, "ASoC: Unregistered card '%s'\n", card->name);
 }
@@ -2667,12 +2672,8 @@ static void snd_soc_del_component_unlocked(struct snd_soc_component *component)
 
 	snd_soc_unregister_dais(component);
 
-	if (card) {
-		instantiated = card->instantiated;
-		snd_soc_unbind_card(card);
-		if (instantiated)
-			list_add(&card->list, &unbind_card_list);
-	}
+	if (card)
+		snd_soc_unbind_card(card, true);
 
 	list_del(&component->list);
 }
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: soc-core: handle card->list in snd_soc_unbind_card()

[Rojewski, Cezary]

On 5/13/2026 3:48 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> snd_soc_bind_card()   is handling card->list inside, but
> snd_soc_unbind_card() is handling it in outside.
> Let's handle it inside.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
> ---
>   sound/soc/soc-core.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> index ae8467d88978e..8b2269ba67c3a 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> @@ -1990,12 +1990,18 @@ static void soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct snd_soc_card *card)
>   	}
>   }
>   
> -static void snd_soc_unbind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
> +static void snd_soc_unbind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card, bool add_to_list)
>   {
>   	if (snd_soc_card_is_instantiated(card)) {
>   		card->instantiated = false;
>   		soc_cleanup_card_resources(card);
> +
> +		if (add_to_list)
> +			list_add(&card->list, &unbind_card_list);

I see benefit in this.

>   	}
> +
> +	if (!add_to_list)
> +		list_del(&card->list);

But not this.

Moving card-behavior code from component-related function to 
card-related one seems intuitive.  However, snd_soc_unregister_card() is 
already card-lated function.  I'd keep the list_del() there and avoid 
the second if-statement.

>   }
>   
>   static int snd_soc_bind_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
> @@ -2439,8 +2445,7 @@ void snd_soc_unregister_card(struct snd_soc_card *card)
>   {
>   	guard(mutex)(&client_mutex);
>   
> -	snd_soc_unbind_card(card);
> -	list_del(&card->list);
> +	snd_soc_unbind_card(card, false);
>   
>   	dev_dbg(card->dev, "ASoC: Unregistered card '%s'\n", card->name);
>   }
> @@ -2667,12 +2672,8 @@ static void snd_soc_del_component_unlocked(struct snd_soc_component *component)
>   
>   	snd_soc_unregister_dais(component);
>   
> -	if (card) {
> -		instantiated = card->instantiated;
> -		snd_soc_unbind_card(card);
> -		if (instantiated)
> -			list_add(&card->list, &unbind_card_list);
> -	}
> +	if (card)
> +		snd_soc_unbind_card(card, true);
>   
>   	list_del(&component->list);
>   }

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: soc-core: handle card->list in snd_soc_unbind_card()

[Kuninori Morimoto]

Hi Rojewski

Thank you for your feedback.

> > +	if (!add_to_list)
> > +		list_del(&card->list);
> 
> But not this.
> 
> Moving card-behavior code from component-related function to 
> card-related one seems intuitive.  However, snd_soc_unregister_card() is 
> already card-lated function.  I'd keep the list_del() there and avoid 
> the second if-statement.

I can agree if we focus about "whether card-lated function" or not.
But if we focus to contrast/balance of functions, it is...

(*) hadling list

	register <-> unregister (*)
	bind (*) <-> unbind (*)

This is not good balance. I like

	register <-> unregister
	bind (*) <-> unbind (*)

But indeed, I can agree that having bool in unbind function is not a bad
idea, but not so good...

And, 2nd concern is that snd_soc_unregister_card() is using client_mutex.
It is soc-core.c local variable. So snd_soc_unregister_card() might can't
goto soc-card.c. This means we need to include card->list handling inside
soc_unbind_card() and call it from soc-core.c.
(Or maybe we can share client_mutex on each soc-xxx.c, but not sure yet).

But what do you think ?

Thank you for your help !!

Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto