Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:54:01 +0200 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: AT32 ASoC Driver Patches on alsa-devel |
| |
At Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:24:09 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > Number 1 reason (for me): The only driver for my CODEC (WM8510) was an ASoC > > driver. Using sound system other than ASoC would require porting / rewriting > > this driver. Since an AT91 ASoC platform driver already existed, and would > > be virtually the same as the AT32 platform driver, this was the best choice > > for getting sound quickly. So this essentially boils down to code reuse. > > And if we switch CODEC's for some reason, it's less work. > > That's certainly a good reason, though I don't understand why reusing > code isn't important on non-SoC platforms.
Of course, important. And it's actually done in a different way...
> > Another highly compelling reason: power consumption. Only powers up parts of > > the audio pathway that are currently needed. > > Another good reason, but again I don't understand why power management > isn't important on PCs.
Of course, important. And it's actually done in a different way...
> > For more reasons: http://alsa-project.org/main/index.php/ASoC > > The reasons are all good, but yet again, I don't understand why those > design goals aren't appropriate for ALSA as a whole.
Mostly because of the difference of the target hardware design. From the very beginning, ASoC is designed specifically for mobile devices while ALSA is designed as a more generic abstraction.
Ideally, more fusion would be possible, but practically it's not always worth. I don't think you want to merge codes between ext3 and reiserfs although both have similar "design goals" :)
Takashi
| |