Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ASoC: soc-pcm: Optimize hw_params() BE DAI call

["Sheetal ." <sheetal@nvidia.com>]

On 13-05-2025 11:45, Péter Ujfalusi wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On 12/05/2025 15:01, Sameer Pujar wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08-04-2025 14:00, Sheetal . wrote:
>>> From: Sheetal <sheetal@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> The hw_params() function for BE DAI was being called multiple times due
>>> to an unnecessary SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_HW_PARAMS state check.
>>>
>>> Remove the redundant state check to ensure hw_params() is called only
>>> once
>>> per BE DAI configuration.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sheetal <sheetal@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Update commit message as its not a fix.
>>> - Marked as RFC patch as it requires feedback from other users
>>>     perspective as well.
>>> - The patch is being sent separately as other patch is not RFC.
>>>
>>>    sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 1 -
>>>    1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>> index d7f6d3a6d312..c73be27c4ecb 100644
>>> --- a/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-pcm.c
>>> @@ -2123,7 +2123,6 @@ int dpcm_be_dai_hw_params(struct
>>> snd_soc_pcm_runtime *fe, int stream)
>>>                continue;
>>>              if ((be->dpcm[stream].state != SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_OPEN) &&
>>> -            (be->dpcm[stream].state != SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_HW_PARAMS) &&
>>>                (be->dpcm[stream].state != SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_HW_FREE))
>>>                continue;
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com>
>>
>>
>> Earlier Intel systems needed multiple hw_params() call and I am not sure
>> if that still holds good. Given https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/28/1267, it
>> would be good to get feedback from Intel and I have added few people
>> based on the earlier discussion.
> 
> Picked the patch to run it through our CI:
> https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/5414

Please share feedback or comments if any.

> 
> --
> Péter
>