| Message ID | 1343387941-25266-1-git-send-email-b29396@freescale.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 07:19:01PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org> > > This could help people know what's wrong going on if the required > path is not registered. This isn't a good idea, it's fairly common for widgets to have a "None" option which isn't expected to have an input.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:22:19AM +0800, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 07:19:01PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org> > > > > This could help people know what's wrong going on if the required > > path is not registered. > > This isn't a good idea, it's fairly common for widgets to have a "None" > option which isn't expected to have an input. > What i changed is mux widgets, i'm wondering is it possible or correct the mux widget has no input path? If i understand correct, we may need set correct input path for mux widget, or why we still need a mux? Or can you help give an example that no input needed for mux widget? Regards Dong Aisheng
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:49:53PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:22:19AM +0800, Mark Brown wrote: > > This isn't a good idea, it's fairly common for widgets to have a "None" > > option which isn't expected to have an input. > What i changed is mux widgets, i'm wondering is it possible or correct > the mux widget has no input path? > If i understand correct, we may need set correct input path > for mux widget, or why we still need a mux? > Or can you help give an example that no input needed for mux widget? The above is the most common example - one of the inputs to a mux being a "no input" option which shouldn't be connected to anything. A mux with no inputs at all would be silly, but having one (or sometimes a couple for various reasons) that isn't connected isn't unusual.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:15:16PM +0800, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:49:53PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:22:19AM +0800, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > This isn't a good idea, it's fairly common for widgets to have a "None" > > > option which isn't expected to have an input. > > > What i changed is mux widgets, i'm wondering is it possible or correct > > the mux widget has no input path? > > If i understand correct, we may need set correct input path > > for mux widget, or why we still need a mux? > > > Or can you help give an example that no input needed for mux widget? > > The above is the most common example - one of the inputs to a mux being > a "no input" option which shouldn't be connected to anything. A mux > with no inputs at all would be silly, but having one (or sometimes a > couple for various reasons) that isn't connected isn't unusual. > Understand. Thanks for the info. Regards Dong Aisheng
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c b/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c index 4d181df..b9b94c5 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-dapm.c @@ -1879,6 +1879,9 @@ static int soc_dapm_mux_update_power(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *widget, } } + WARN(!found, "did not find dapm widget path associated with kcontrol %s\n", + kcontrol->id.name); + if (found) { dapm_mark_dirty(widget, "mux change"); dapm_power_widgets(widget->dapm, SND_SOC_DAPM_STREAM_NOP);