From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB8BC4360C for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alsa0.perex.cz (alsa0.perex.cz [77.48.224.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 662F32053B for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alsa-project.org header.i=@alsa-project.org header.b="AhFcmlzw" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 662F32053B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=renesas.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (alsa1.perex.cz [207.180.221.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 584881616; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:30:53 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa0.perex.cz 584881616 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alsa-project.org; s=default; t=1570757503; bh=7HrFMwxFSHUj3wR/+g7OxM4kSEMRPEkdBrYX7BLY3co=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=AhFcmlzwevaJO+/cAWXHSnBgx9XtD0qAa1ljMjIRKwRVTiHIkcN/0Io+D/UPez/hf MpJ4aN0OPDLiOueTUObEyp+mZz44uijzcRiGeDphCq0v1xf2OfB3vEhEdLcLI4kTeS yhNopS1T4jpwGoWntZXemc9L+V1SAOo0zn/CMs4g= Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB612F80322; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:30:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) id 3ABB9F8038F; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:30:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relmlie5.idc.renesas.com (relmlor1.renesas.com [210.160.252.171]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2755AF802BC for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:30:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa1.perex.cz 2755AF802BC Date: 11 Oct 2019 10:30:42 +0900 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,282,1566831600"; d="scan'208";a="28827755" Received: from unknown (HELO relmlir6.idc.renesas.com) ([10.200.68.152]) by relmlie5.idc.renesas.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2019 10:30:42 +0900 Received: from morimoto-PC.renesas.com (unknown [10.166.18.140]) by relmlir6.idc.renesas.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E20E41476D3; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:30:42 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <87pnj4vzjx.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> From: Kuninori Morimoto To: Pierre-Louis Bossart In-Reply-To: References: <87sgo2ilso.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87ftk2ilqz.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Cc: Linux-ALSA , Mark Brown Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 09/21] ASoC: soc-core: remove unneeded snd_soc_tplg_component_remove() X-BeenThere: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Alsa-devel mailing list for ALSA developers - http://www.alsa-project.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" Hi Pierre-Louis > > snd_soc_tplg_component_remove() is topology related cleanup function. > > The driver which added topology needed cleanup it, not by soc-core. > > Only topology user skl-pcm is calling it, there is no effect by > > this patch. (snip) > > --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c > > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > > @@ -2870,8 +2870,6 @@ static int __snd_soc_unregister_component(struct device *dev) > > if (dev != component->dev) > > continue; > > - snd_soc_tplg_component_remove(component, > > - SND_SOC_TPLG_INDEX_ALL); > > snd_soc_component_del_unlocked(component); (snip) > the SOF driver also calls snd_soc_tplg_component_remove(), so not sure > what you meant by the comment? Ahh, yes indeed. My opinion is that driver who called _load() need to call _remove() under his responsibility. Today, skl-pcm and topology are the user. They are calling both _load() and_remove(). Thus, I think soc-core don't need to call it ? If we want to keep it as robustness, I want to have this comment, otherwise very confusable, because soc-core never call _load() but calling _remove() /* For framework level robustness */ snd_soc_tplg_component_remove(...); Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel