Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ALSA: hda/tas2781: Add tas2781 HDA driver

[Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>]

The first patch in this series has the same commit title as the second
one, can this be updated with a more meaningful description of the two
patches?


> diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/patch_realtek.c b/sound/pci/hda/patch_realtek.c
> index 44fccfb93cff..ba1b02ed184a 100644
> --- a/sound/pci/hda/patch_realtek.c
> +++ b/sound/pci/hda/patch_realtek.c
> @@ -6721,7 +6721,7 @@ static void comp_generic_playback_hook(struct hda_pcm_stream *hinfo, struct hda_
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -struct cs35l41_dev_name {
> +struct scodec_dev_name {

you are changing things in patch_realtek.c that are completely unrelated
to the tas2781, usually the recommendation is that the changes have to
be part of a different patch so that the real addition of tas2781 parts
are easier to review.

>  	const char *bus;
>  	const char *hid;
>  	int index;
> @@ -6730,7 +6730,7 @@ struct cs35l41_dev_name {
>  /* match the device name in a slightly relaxed manner */
>  static int comp_match_cs35l41_dev_name(struct device *dev, void *data)
>  {
> -	struct cs35l41_dev_name *p = data;
> +	struct scodec_dev_name *p = data;
>  	const char *d = dev_name(dev);
>  	int n = strlen(p->bus);
>  	char tmp[32];
> @@ -6746,12 +6746,32 @@ static int comp_match_cs35l41_dev_name(struct device *dev, void *data)
>  	return !strcmp(d + n, tmp);
>  }
>  
> +static int comp_match_tas2781_dev_name(struct device *dev,
> +	void *data)
> +{
> +	struct scodec_dev_name *p = data;
> +	const char *d = dev_name(dev);
> +	int n = strlen(p->bus);
> +	char tmp[32];
> +
> +	/* check the bus name */
> +	if (strncmp(d, p->bus, n))
> +		return 0;
> +	/* skip the bus number */
> +	if (isdigit(d[n]))
> +		n++;
> +	/* the rest must be exact matching */
> +	snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "-%s:00", p->hid);

ACPI can sometimes add :01 suffixes, this looks like the re-invention of
an ACPI helper?

Adding Andy for the ACPI review.

> +
> +	return !strcmp(d + n, tmp);
> +}
> +
>  static void cs35l41_generic_fixup(struct hda_codec *cdc, int action, const char *bus,
>  				  const char *hid, int count)
>  {
>  	struct device *dev = hda_codec_dev(cdc);
>  	struct alc_spec *spec = cdc->spec;
> -	struct cs35l41_dev_name *rec;
> +	struct scodec_dev_name *rec;
>  	int ret, i;
>  
>  	switch (action) {
> @@ -6779,6 +6799,41 @@ static void cs35l41_generic_fixup(struct hda_codec *cdc, int action, const char
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void tas2781_generic_fixup(struct hda_codec *cdc, int action,
> +	const char *bus, const char *hid)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = hda_codec_dev(cdc);
> +	struct alc_spec *spec = cdc->spec;
> +	struct scodec_dev_name *rec;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	switch (action) {
> +	case HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PRE_PROBE:
> +		rec = devm_kmalloc(dev, sizeof(*rec), GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!rec)
> +			return;
> +		rec->bus = bus;
> +		rec->hid = hid;
> +		rec->index = 0;
> +		spec->comps[0].codec = cdc;
> +		component_match_add(dev, &spec->match,
> +			comp_match_tas2781_dev_name, rec);
> +		ret = component_master_add_with_match(dev, &comp_master_ops,
> +			spec->match);
> +		if (ret)
> +			codec_err(cdc,
> +				"Fail to register component aggregator %d\n",
> +				ret);
> +		else
> +			spec->gen.pcm_playback_hook =
> +				comp_generic_playback_hook;
> +		break;
> +	case HDA_FIXUP_ACT_FREE:

This is the first use of FIXUP_ACT_FREE in this function, is this
required/intentional?

> +		component_master_del(dev, &comp_master_ops);

Also is there a need to test that the PRE_PROBE actually worked?

> +		break;
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static void cs35l41_fixup_i2c_two(struct hda_codec *cdc, const struct hda_fixup *fix, int action)
>  {
>  	cs35l41_generic_fixup(cdc, action, "i2c", "CSC3551", 2);
> @@ -6806,6 +6861,12 @@ static void alc287_fixup_legion_16ithg6_speakers(struct hda_codec *cdc, const st
>  	cs35l41_generic_fixup(cdc, action, "i2c", "CLSA0101", 2);
>  }
>  
> +static void tas2781_fixup_i2c(struct hda_codec *cdc,
> +	const struct hda_fixup *fix, int action)
> +{
> +	 tas2781_generic_fixup(cdc, action, "i2c", "TIAS2781");

TI ACPI ID is TXNW

https://uefi.org/ACPI_ID_List?search=TEXAS

There's also a PNP ID PXN

https://uefi.org/PNP_ID_List?search=TEXAS

"TIAS" looks like an invented identifier. It's not uncommon but should
be recorded with a comment if I am not mistaken.


> +}
> +
>  /* for alc295_fixup_hp_top_speakers */
>  #include "hp_x360_helper.c"
>  
> @@ -7231,6 +7292,7 @@ enum {
>  	ALC295_FIXUP_DELL_INSPIRON_TOP_SPEAKERS,
>  	ALC236_FIXUP_DELL_DUAL_CODECS,
>  	ALC287_FIXUP_CS35L41_I2C_2_THINKPAD_ACPI,
> +	ALC287_FIXUP_TAS2781_I2C,
>  };
>  
>  /* A special fixup for Lenovo C940 and Yoga Duet 7;
> @@ -9309,6 +9371,12 @@ static const struct hda_fixup alc269_fixups[] = {
>  		.chained = true,
>  		.chain_id = ALC269_FIXUP_THINKPAD_ACPI,
>  	},
> +	[ALC287_FIXUP_TAS2781_I2C] = {
> +		.type = HDA_FIXUP_FUNC,
> +		.v.func = tas2781_fixup_i2c,
> +		.chained = true,
> +		.chain_id = ALC269_FIXUP_THINKPAD_ACPI,

If this is part of the THINKPAD chain, should this fixup name also refer
to THINKPAD, as e.g. ALC287_FIXUP_CS35L41_I2C_2_THINKPAD_ACPI