Re: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: compr: Add compress ops implementation

[Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>]

On 2022-01-13 5:13 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> From: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@nxp.com>
> 
> Implement snd_compress_ops. There are a lot of similarities with
> PCM implementation.
> 
> For now we use sof_ipc_pcm_params to transfer compress parameters to SOF
> firmware.
> 
> This will be changed in the future once we either add new compress
> parameters to SOF or enhance existing sof_ipc_pcm_params structure
> to support all native compress params.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@nxp.com>

...

> +static int create_page_table(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> +			     struct snd_compr_stream *cstream,
> +			     unsigned char *dma_area, size_t size)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = cstream->private_data;
> +	struct snd_dma_buffer *dmab = cstream->runtime->dma_buffer_p;
> +	int dir = cstream->direction;
> +	struct snd_sof_pcm *spcm;

The layout of this declaration block is weird - it's neither a 
reversed-christmas-tree nor higher->lower complexity (e.g. structs -> 
primitives). Could you explain why it is shaped as is?

> +
> +	spcm = snd_sof_find_spcm_dai(component, rtd);
> +	if (!spcm)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	return snd_sof_create_page_table(component->dev, dmab,
> +					 spcm->stream[dir].page_table.area, size);
> +}
> +
> +int sof_compr_open(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> +		   struct snd_compr_stream *cstream)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = cstream->private_data;
> +	struct snd_compr_runtime *runtime = cstream->runtime;

Making use of 'rtd' and 'runtime' simultaneously within a function make 
it less readable.

> +	struct sof_compr_stream *sstream;
> +	struct snd_sof_pcm *spcm;
> +	int dir;
> +
> +	sstream = kzalloc(sizeof(*sstream), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!sstream)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	spcm = snd_sof_find_spcm_dai(component, rtd);
> +	if (!spcm) {
> +		kfree(sstream);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	dir = cstream->direction;
> +
> +	if (spcm->stream[dir].cstream) {
> +		kfree(sstream);
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}

Could you explain why this check is needed? i.e. Is is possible for 
compress stream to be opened "twice"?

> +
> +	spcm->stream[dir].cstream = cstream;
> +	spcm->stream[dir].posn.host_posn = 0;
> +	spcm->stream[dir].posn.dai_posn = 0;
> +	spcm->prepared[dir] = false;
> +
> +	runtime->private_data = sstream;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int sof_compr_free(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> +		   struct snd_compr_stream *cstream)
> +{
> +	struct snd_sof_dev *sdev = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> +	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = cstream->private_data;
> +	struct snd_compr_runtime *runtime = cstream->runtime;

Ditto.

> +	struct sof_compr_stream *sstream = runtime->private_data;
> +	struct sof_ipc_stream stream;
> +	struct sof_ipc_reply reply;
> +	struct snd_sof_pcm *spcm;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	spcm = snd_sof_find_spcm_dai(component, rtd);
> +	if (!spcm)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	stream.hdr.size = sizeof(stream);
> +	stream.hdr.cmd = SOF_IPC_GLB_STREAM_MSG | SOF_IPC_STREAM_PCM_FREE;
> +	stream.comp_id = spcm->stream[cstream->direction].comp_id;
> +
> +	if (spcm->prepared[cstream->direction]) {
> +		ret = sof_ipc_tx_message(sdev->ipc, stream.hdr.cmd,
> +					 &stream, sizeof(stream),
> +					 &reply, sizeof(reply));
> +		if (!ret)
> +			spcm->prepared[cstream->direction] = false;

Why is the assignment conditional? If IPC fails, is the ->prepared flag 
respected and addressed later on? It does not seem to happen here.

> +	}
> +
> +	cancel_work_sync(&spcm->stream[cstream->direction].period_elapsed_work);
> +	spcm->stream[cstream->direction].cstream = NULL;
> +	kfree(sstream);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int sof_compr_set_params(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> +			 struct snd_compr_stream *cstream, struct snd_compr_params *params)
> +{
> +	struct snd_sof_dev *sdev = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> +	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd_pcm = cstream->private_data;
> +	struct snd_compr_runtime *rtd = cstream->runtime;
> +	struct sof_compr_stream *sstream = rtd->private_data;
> +	struct sof_ipc_pcm_params_reply ipc_params_reply;
> +	struct sof_ipc_pcm_params pcm;
> +	struct snd_sof_pcm *spcm;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	spcm = snd_sof_find_spcm_dai(component, rtd_pcm);
> +	if (!spcm)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	cstream->dma_buffer.dev.type = SNDRV_DMA_TYPE_DEV_SG;
> +	cstream->dma_buffer.dev.dev = sdev->dev;
> +	ret = snd_compr_malloc_pages(cstream, rtd->buffer_size);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	create_page_table(component, cstream, rtd->dma_area, rtd->dma_bytes);

Shouldn't the result of create_page_table() be tested before moving on?


...

> +int sof_compr_trigger(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> +		      struct snd_compr_stream *cstream, int cmd)
> +{
> +	struct sof_ipc_stream stream;
> +	struct sof_ipc_reply reply;
> +	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = cstream->private_data;
> +	struct snd_sof_dev *sdev = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> +	struct snd_sof_pcm *spcm;

Similarly to create_page_table() case, layout of this declaration block 
is weird. Perhaps I'm just unaware of the convention used within this 
directory.


...

> +static int sof_compr_pointer(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> +			     struct snd_compr_stream *cstream,
> +			     struct snd_compr_tstamp *tstamp)
> +{
> +	struct snd_compr_runtime *runtime = cstream->runtime;
> +	struct sof_compr_stream *sstream = runtime->private_data;

I'd suggest declaring single local variable instead. The 'runtime' one 
is unused except for the initial 'sstream' assignemnt.

> +
> +	tstamp->sampling_rate = sstream->sample_rate;
> +	tstamp->copied_total = sstream->copied_total;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

...

> diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/sof-priv.h b/sound/soc/sof/sof-priv.h
> index 087935192ce8..d001a762a866 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/sof/sof-priv.h
> +++ b/sound/soc/sof/sof-priv.h
> @@ -108,6 +108,12 @@ enum sof_debugfs_access_type {
>   	SOF_DEBUGFS_ACCESS_D0_ONLY,
>   };
>   
> +struct sof_compr_stream {
> +	unsigned int copied_total;
> +	unsigned int sample_rate;
> +	size_t posn_offset;
> +};

Some streaming-related PCM structs follow snd_sof_xxx naming pattern 
instead, e.g.: snd_sof_pcm. Is the naming convention for compress 
streams seen here intentional?

> +
>   struct snd_sof_dev;
>   struct snd_sof_ipc_msg;
>   struct snd_sof_ipc;
>