Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] ASoC: soc-pcm: tweak DPCM BE hw_param() call order

[Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com>]

On 28-03-2022 20:59, Ranjani Sridharan wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-03-28 at 11:44 +0530, Sameer Pujar wrote:
>> For DPCM links, the order of hw_param() call depends on the sequence
>> of
>> BE connection to FE. It is possible that one BE link can provide
>> clock
>> to another BE link. In such cases consumer BE DAI, to get the rate
>> set
>> by provider BE DAI, can use the standard clock functions only if
>> provider
>> has already set the appropriate rate during its hw_param() stage.
>>
>> Presently the order is fixed and does not depend on the provider and
>> consumer relationships. So the clock rates need to be known ahead of
>> hw_param() stage.
>>
>> This patch tweaks the hw_param() order by connecting the provider BEs
>> late to a FE. With this hw_param() calls for provider BEs happen
>> first
>> and then followed by consumer BEs. The consumers can use the standard
>> clk_get_rate() function to get the rate of the clock they depend on.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sameer Pujar<spujar@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   TODO:
>>    * The FE link is not considered in this. For Tegra it is fine to
>>      call hw_params() for FE at the end. But systems, which want to
>> apply
>>      this tweak for FE as well, have to extend this tweak to FE.
>>    * Also only DPCM is considered here. If normal links require such
>>      tweak, it needs to be extended.
>>
>>   sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 60
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>> index 9a95468..5829514 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>> @@ -1442,6 +1442,29 @@ static int dpcm_prune_paths(struct
>> snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int stream,
>>        return prune;
>>   }
>>
>> +static bool defer_dpcm_be_connect(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd)
>> +{
>> +     struct snd_soc_dai *dai;
>> +     int i;
>> +
>> +     if (!(rtd->dai_link->dai_fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_FORMAT_MASK))
>> +             return false;
> Is this check necessary?

By default the link has "SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBC_CFC". When no format 
(I2S/RIGHT_J etc.,) is specified, the links are mostly internal and the 
normal order can be followed.

>> +
>> +     if ((rtd->dai_link->dai_fmt &
>> SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CLOCK_PROVIDER_MASK) ==
>> +         SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBC_CFC) {
>> +
>> +             for_each_rtd_cpu_dais(rtd, i, dai) {
>> +
>> +                     if (!snd_soc_dai_is_dummy(dai))
>> +                             return true;
>> +             }
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define MAX_CLK_PROVIDER_BE 10
>> +
>>   static int dpcm_add_paths(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int
>> stream,
>>        struct snd_soc_dapm_widget_list **list_)
>>   {
>> @@ -1449,7 +1472,8 @@ static int dpcm_add_paths(struct
>> snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int stream,
>>        struct snd_soc_dapm_widget_list *list = *list_;
>>        struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *be;
>>        struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *widget;
>> -     int i, new = 0, err;
>> +     struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *prov[MAX_CLK_PROVIDER_BE];
>> +     int i, new = 0, err, count = 0;
>>
>>        /* Create any new FE <--> BE connections */
>>        for_each_dapm_widgets(list, i, widget) {
>> @@ -1489,6 +1513,40 @@ static int dpcm_add_paths(struct
>> snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int stream,
>>                    (be->dpcm[stream].state !=
>> SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_CLOSE))
>>                        continue;
>>
>> +             /* Connect clock provider BEs at the end */
>> +             if (defer_dpcm_be_connect(be)) {
>> +                     if (count >= MAX_CLK_PROVIDER_BE) {
> What determines MAX_CLK_PROVIDER_BE? why 10? Can you use rtd->num_cpus
> instead?

There is no specific reason as why it cannot be more than 10. I mostly 
thought it would be a fair assumption to have these many clock providers 
for audio paths. I will check if such limitation can be avoided. I 
cannot rely on "rtd->num_cpus", since in my case there are two different 
rtds one acting as provider and other as consumer.