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=-8.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 D4320C433E3 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:53:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A839A2071E for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:53:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="fsLiRzQw" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728944AbgHYFxY (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:53:24 -0400 Received: from hqnvemgate25.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:12339 "EHLO hqnvemgate25.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726090AbgHYFxV (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:53:21 -0400 Received: from hqpgpgate102.nvidia.com (Not Verified[216.228.121.13]) by hqnvemgate25.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, DES-CBC3-SHA) id ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:52:19 -0700 Received: from hqmail.nvidia.com ([172.20.161.6]) by hqpgpgate102.nvidia.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:53:21 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqpgpgate102.nvidia.com on Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:53:21 -0700 Received: from [10.25.97.151] (10.124.1.5) by HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:53:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ASoC: audio-graph: Identify 'no_pcm' DAI links for DPCM To: Kuninori Morimoto CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <1596605064-27748-1-git-send-email-spujar@nvidia.com> <1596605064-27748-4-git-send-email-spujar@nvidia.com> <87pn7ofs19.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <97f325a6-96cc-11c5-8027-8c0a159e3da0@nvidia.com> <2d3aa11e-3c56-1f7a-3d41-2457f973d55b@nvidia.com> <87sgcbwcnf.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <14691a05-cb29-a030-0e72-eca900d8eb7e@nvidia.com> <87o8mzwajg.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> From: Sameer Pujar Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:23:11 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87o8mzwajg.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.124.1.5] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) To HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1598334739; bh=bOJlbPEDP7bzEfLTN1ma/hpFcaswtMKhxhFtn3X3KB0=; h=X-PGP-Universal:Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date: User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:X-Originating-IP: X-ClientProxiedBy:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Language; b=fsLiRzQw2KhMMRuKJolVunTD28eXxVDQEasbWsBseJFOJDgUaSFnunqKtJ3hBvnjb E7KH1w1J+OjQ3pxSZXZpO+ndOwCuK0G2/xn5odTxVE055PvSbW4ECgZOPS2OGsbbH7 rOTlyUpcq+sthGswphFXGjEDvltPYqQKPUEiDY1CgM3MnLEhYtWEBV2/wZxieSF4SN ezxBnh4qVgtV983svcZeEKtOAZxdKwbwbVIe0utHlM7kG0Oq8ssLOsvFEAUnDYnjBO b/eNGzTOIAnxUbM7fpNZ8m4Rvv7XVXAdZ1hImwviKGkkc2sFPkgiMHW91zdOI1622/ erQHqP+NaoXCg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Morimoto-san, >>> Yes, I'm posting fixup patch. >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11719919/ >> Just curious that why snd_soc_find_dai() itself cannot be protected, >> instead of leaving this to callers. > Because, snd_soc_find_dai() is called both with/without client_mutex. > (same/sof are calling it with mutex, simple-card/audio-graph are calling without mutex) > > Other solution is create both snd_soc_find_dai_with_mutex()/without_mutex(). > I'm not sure which style is best. I don't know how complex it is to have a unified solution. But if we can protect snd_soc_find_dai() itself, things would be simpler may be in long term. Right now there are separate source files for soc-core, soc-dai and soc-component, but because of two approaches looks like the function need to be moved around and need to be placed in soc-core. Also the issue might go unnoticed if LOCKDEP is not enabled. May be start with a wrapper for now and eventually unify? Thanks, Sameer.