[v2,resend,00/18] ASoC: soc-core cleanup - step 4

Message

Kuninori Morimoto Oct. 30, 2019, 1:23 a.m. UTC

Hi Mark

These are resend of soc-core cleanup step4.
These are based on mark/for-5.5 branch.
I already got report from Intel that these had no issue on Intel CI machine.

Kuninori Morimoto (18):
  ASoC: soc-core: remove unneeded snd_soc_tplg_component_remove()
  ASoC: soc-core: move soc_init_dai_link()
  ASoC: soc-core: tidyup soc_init_dai_link()
  ASoC: soc-core: remove duplicated soc_is_dai_link_bound()
  ASoC: soc-core: call soc_bind_dai_link() under snd_soc_add_dai_link()
  ASoC: soc-core: add soc_unbind_dai_link()
  ASoC: soc-core: move snd_soc_lookup_component()
  ASoC: soc-core: add snd_soc_del_component_unlocked()
  ASoC: soc-core: remove snd_soc_component_add/del()
  ASoC: soc-core: use snd_soc_lookup_component() at snd_soc_unregister_component()
  ASoC: soc-core: move snd_soc_register_dai()
  ASoC: soc-core: move snd_soc_unregister_dais()
  ASoC: soc-core: add snd_soc_unregister_dai()
  ASoC: soc-core: have legacy_dai_naming at snd_soc_register_dai()
  ASoC: soc-core: don't call snd_soc_dapm_new_dai_widgets() at snd_soc_register_dai()
  ASoC: soc-core: call snd_soc_register_dai() from snd_soc_register_dais()
  ASoC: soc-core: remove topology specific operation
  ASoC: soc.h: dobj is used only when SND_SOC_TOPOLOGY

 include/sound/soc.h      |  15 +-
 sound/soc/soc-core.c     | 536 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
 sound/soc/soc-topology.c |  17 +-
 3 files changed, 263 insertions(+), 305 deletions(-)

Comments

Mark Brown Oct. 30, 2019, 11:34 a.m. UTC | #1

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:23:06AM +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:

> These are resend of soc-core cleanup step4.
> These are based on mark/for-5.5 branch.
> I already got report from Intel that these had no issue on Intel CI machine.

OK, that's not very visible :(  I'd been waiting for the review from
them that you said was needed.

Kuninori Morimoto Oct. 31, 2019, 12:46 a.m. UTC | #2

Hi Mark
Cc: Pierre-Louis

> > These are resend of soc-core cleanup step4.
> > These are based on mark/for-5.5 branch.
> > I already got report from Intel that these had no issue on Intel CI machine.
> 
> OK, that's not very visible :(  I'd been waiting for the review from
> them that you said was needed.

I think it is [05/18] this time.

As I told before, the topology might get damage if this patch was wrong.
But, Intel CI works correctly, thus, it has no issue, I guess.

Reviewing from Intel is for double check purpose.
I have updated easier to read its log.
So I guess reviewing became more easier (?).

Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto

Pierre-Louis Bossart Nov. 5, 2019, 2:38 a.m. UTC | #3

On 10/29/19 8:23 PM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark
> 
> These are resend of soc-core cleanup step4.
> These are based on mark/for-5.5 branch.
> I already got report from Intel that these had no issue on Intel CI machine.

In addition to the first pass of automatic testing on SOF-enabled 
devices, I double-checked the v2 code once more and didn't see any 
issues with the changes. Copying Ranjani and Kai in case they have spare 
cycles to have additional eyes on this large change.

The comments I have are on existing code that was moved, and the 
improvements could be handled as a follow-up patch. So for the series

Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <[e-mail]>

Thanks Morimoto-san, this is a major clean-up. Nice work!

> 
> Kuninori Morimoto (18):
>    ASoC: soc-core: remove unneeded snd_soc_tplg_component_remove()
>    ASoC: soc-core: move soc_init_dai_link()
>    ASoC: soc-core: tidyup soc_init_dai_link()
>    ASoC: soc-core: remove duplicated soc_is_dai_link_bound()
>    ASoC: soc-core: call soc_bind_dai_link() under snd_soc_add_dai_link()
>    ASoC: soc-core: add soc_unbind_dai_link()
>    ASoC: soc-core: move snd_soc_lookup_component()
>    ASoC: soc-core: add snd_soc_del_component_unlocked()
>    ASoC: soc-core: remove snd_soc_component_add/del()
>    ASoC: soc-core: use snd_soc_lookup_component() at snd_soc_unregister_component()
>    ASoC: soc-core: move snd_soc_register_dai()
>    ASoC: soc-core: move snd_soc_unregister_dais()
>    ASoC: soc-core: add snd_soc_unregister_dai()
>    ASoC: soc-core: have legacy_dai_naming at snd_soc_register_dai()
>    ASoC: soc-core: don't call snd_soc_dapm_new_dai_widgets() at snd_soc_register_dai()
>    ASoC: soc-core: call snd_soc_register_dai() from snd_soc_register_dais()
>    ASoC: soc-core: remove topology specific operation
>    ASoC: soc.h: dobj is used only when SND_SOC_TOPOLOGY
> 
>   include/sound/soc.h      |  15 +-
>   sound/soc/soc-core.c     | 536 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>   sound/soc/soc-topology.c |  17 +-
>   3 files changed, 263 insertions(+), 305 deletions(-)
>

Kuninori Morimoto Nov. 5, 2019, 4:08 a.m. UTC | #4

Hi Pierre-Louis
Cc Mark

> > These are resend of soc-core cleanup step4.
> > These are based on mark/for-5.5 branch.
> > I already got report from Intel that these had no issue on Intel CI machine.
> 
> In addition to the first pass of automatic testing on SOF-enabled
> devices, I double-checked the v2 code once more and didn't see any
> issues with the changes. Copying Ranjani and Kai in case they have
> spare cycles to have additional eyes on this large change.
> 
> The comments I have are on existing code that was moved, and the
> improvements could be handled as a follow-up patch. So for the series
> 
> Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <[e-mail]>
> 
> Thanks Morimoto-san, this is a major clean-up. Nice work!

Great thanks for reviewing, Pierre-Louis.

Indeed, your pointed code should be cleaned.
As you said, I will post follow-up patch
if Mark accepted these patch-set.

Again, thank you for your reviewing !!

Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto