Re: [PATCH 1/5] ASoC: soc-link: introduce exit() callback - Pierre-Louis Bossart

From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@linux.intel.com>,
	alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, tiwai@suse.de,
	Curtis Malainey <curtis@malainey.com>,
	broonie@kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ASoC: soc-link: introduce exit() callback
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:50:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c020775-94db-0371-9a07-a1e59759a158@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87imfi3bdd.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>

On 6/22/20 6:54 PM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> 
> Hi Pierre-Louis
> 
>> The exit() is invoked in soc_remove_pcm_runtime(), which is not
>> completely symmetric with the init() invoked in soc_init_pcm_runtime().
> (snip)
>> @@ -945,6 +945,9 @@ void snd_soc_remove_pcm_runtime(struct snd_soc_card *card,
>>   {
>>   	lockdep_assert_held(&client_mutex);
>>   
>> +	/* release machine specific resources */
>> +	snd_soc_link_exit(rtd);
> 
> I can understand that 100% symmetric calling init()/exit() is difficult.
> So we can't help it this time. But if so, it is easy to notice that
> this .exit() is the one of non-symmetric if it has such comment.

Sorry Morimoto-san, I don't understand your last sentence.
Were you suggesting to reword the "release machine specific resources" 
comment above, or add a comment in the snd_soc_link_exit() definition, 
or something else altogether?
I don't mind sending an update if you feel that makes the core more 
readable.
Thanks!