Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210309082328.38388-1-daniel.baluta@oss.nxp.com>
 <20210309153455.GB4878@sirena.org.uk> <CAEnQRZB_VgsEPYgxtWQWUgs2+noRt1AMMHf2crJ_9Hg7s7NJ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210312104931.GA5348@sirena.org.uk> <CAEnQRZDe_Q-N7L_7z7aVz1o3guKd6R+WFrOfT9KPbggJP8SPZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210312115748.GC5348@sirena.org.uk> <CAEnQRZAAU34YS778WJVD6uubSwQxjA-5LTG9g0CvSdSZOuO+tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210312142300.GG5348@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20210312142300.GG5348@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:48:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEnQRZB7BDA7gdiWH1PR_=XDiFiDW0=tPH4xY2D98=s_-mV7nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: core: Don't set platform name when of_node is set
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@oss.nxp.com>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
        "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@nxp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:24 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:37:30PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 1:59 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > No, just the opposite!  If there's an explict name configured why do you
> > > want to ignore it?
>
> > Because the initial assignment:
>
> > dai_link->platforms->name = component->name;
>
> > doesn't take into consideration that dai_link->platform->of_node is
> > also explicitly configured.
>
> But why should we take that into consideration here?
>
> > dai->link->platforms->of_node
> > configured and we hit this error:
> >
> > soc_dai_link_sanity_check:
> > /*
> >  * Platform may be specified by either name or OF node, but it
> >  * can be left unspecified, then no components will be inserted
> >  * in the rtdcom list
> >  */
> > if (!!platform->name == !!platform->of_node) {
> >     dev_err(card->dev,
> >     "ASoC: Neither/both platform name/of_node are set for %s\n", link->name);
> >     return -EINVAL;
> > }
>
> OK, but then does this check actually make sense?  The code has been
> that way since the initial DT introduction since we disallow matching by
> both name and OF node in order to avoid confusion when building the card
> so I think it does but it's only with this mail that I get the
> information to figure out that this is something we actually check for
> then go find the reason why we check.

I will enhance the commit message and send v2. Hope to catch all the
inner details.