lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 12/23] ASoC: simple-card: Support DPCM DAI link with multiple Codecs
From
Date


On 6/30/2020 12:25 PM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Hi Sameer
>
> Thank you for explaining detail at off-list mail.
>
> Your issue happen on (C) case, and you are tring to solve it.
> It is easy to understand if it was indicated at log area.
> I have imagined other system from "multiple CPU/Codec support".
>
> (A) (B)
> FE <-> BE
>
> (C) (D)
> BE <-> BE
>
>>> I'm not sure, this is just my guess.
>>> I'm happy if we can support it more easily :)
>> Right now I am trying re-use simple-card driver as much as possible
>> and still make it work for flexible sound cards. I will be happy to
>> discuss and improve the patch wherever necessary. Please help me
>> understand which part you think looks to be hacky.
>>> But, if it was difficult to keep compatibility on simple-card,
>>> we/you need to have new one.
>> Patch 17/23 and 18/23 introduce new compatible
>> 'simple-cc-audio-card'. Idea was to use component chaining which
>> allows connection of FE<->BE and multiple BE<->BE components along the
>> DAPM path (patch 16/23). Do you think it would be fine?
> This seems very complex system for current simple-card.
> "concept" of simple-card is simple (but "code" is not so simple...)
> Because of it, it doesn't assume flexible connection.
>
> Maybe your patch works for you, but might breaks other systems.
> Or, makes code or DT settings more complex/ununderstandable.
> Not sure, but my guess.
Yes there are complex use cases, but if we look at the amount of changes
required in simple-card driver that is not too much. Existing binding
for simple-card driver would still work fine for our cases. Yes there
are some deviations and we don't want to break existing users, that is
why a *new* compatible was introduced and specific items can be pushed
under it. Majority of the simple-card driver is getting re-used here. We
just need to make sure it does not affect anyone else.

>
> Using cpu@0 node for BE is the 1st confusable point for me.
Don't we use the same methodology for CODEC<->CODEC link and still
describe the DAI link with 'cpu@0' and 'codec@0'?

> Using fe/be instead of cpu/codec is easy to understand.
I guess you are referring to DT binding part. The parsing code
specifically looks for "codec" sub node and thus present conventions had
to be used.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 09:53    [W:0.081 / U:3.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site