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

["Péter Ujfalusi" <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>]

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

-- 
Péter