| Message ID | 8736fbdnwt.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ASoC: soc-core cleanup - step 4 | expand |
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:28 PM Kuninori Morimoto < kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> wrote: > From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> > > snd_soc_tplg_component_remove() is pair of snd_soc_tplg_component_load(), > and it is topology related cleanup function. > > The driver which called _load() needs to call _remove() by its > responsibility. > Today, skl-pcm and topology are the user, and these are calling both > _load() and _remove(). > > soc-core doesn't need to call it. > This patch remove it. > Morimoto-san, When I submitted changes for fixing module load/unload errors with SOF, I had a patch that added this change. At that time, Mark commented that this can be left as is to make the unregister_component() robust. Mark, do you still think it should be left as is or are you OK to remove this? Thanks, Ranjani > > Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> > --- > sound/soc/soc-core.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > index f1b41b0..b07ecfa 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > @@ -2890,8 +2890,6 @@ 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); > found = 1; > break; > -- > 2.7.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-devel mailing list > Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org > https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel >
Hi Sridharan Thank you for your feedback > From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> > > snd_soc_tplg_component_remove() is pair of snd_soc_tplg_component_load(), > and it is topology related cleanup function. > > The driver which called _load() needs to call _remove() by its responsibility. > Today, skl-pcm and topology are the user, and these are calling both > _load() and _remove(). > > soc-core doesn't need to call it. > This patch remove it. (snip) > When I submitted changes for fixing module load/unload errors with SOF, I had a patch that added this change. At that time, > Mark commented that this can be left as is to make the unregister_component() robust. > > Mark, do you still think it should be left as is or are you OK to remove this? This is already accepted by e9904ed5e73af4fd00cf4fcf705420a385af45da ("ASoC: soc-core: remove unneeded snd_soc_tplg_component_remove()") But, I'm OK to keep/reborn it as "robust". Then, I want to have comment, like below. Otherwise, it is confusable for non-topology user. /* For framework level robustness */ snd_soc_tplg_component_remove(...) Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index f1b41b0..b07ecfa 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -2890,8 +2890,6 @@ 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); found = 1; break;