All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Koro Chen <koro.chen@mediatek.com>
To: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, srv_heupstream@mediatek.com,
	tiwai@suse.de, s.hauer@pengutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, p.zabel@pengutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ASoC: Modify check condition of multiple bindings of components
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:31:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1444962713.31246.6.camel@mtksdaap41> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561FA979.6030407@metafoo.de>

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 15:26 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 02:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > 
> >> It was never intended that it is possible to bind a component to multiple
> >> cards. That it was possible was a bug that was overlooked and some people
> >> tried to do it which caused apparently random crashes later on, caused by
> >> the data structure corruption. This is why we added the check to catch this
> >> kind of mistake early and to avoid the crashes.
> > 
> > This is true, but I do think it's something that we should have some
> > story on supporting for some of this hardware that has a bunch of
> > channels in one IP block that can't really interact with each other.
> > It's going to make it a lot easier for people to think about the
> > hardware and how to describe it.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't support it, just that we can't support it with
> the current code. And adding support for it will require a fair bit of
> restructuring.
> 
> If a hardware block as multiple independent channels the best approach in my
> opinion is to register multiple components (Which we can't do at the moment,
> because there can only be one component per device). From a framework point
Yes... I have tried to register 2 platforms in my ASoC platform driver
but alsa considered they are the same platform since they are from the
same device.
> of view there is no difference between a single device with multiple
> independent channels and multiple independent devices with one channel each.
> Both have the same logical topology.
> 
Yes, but in my case there is only one HW, one set of registers, and one
set of clocks, it should be a single device node in the device tree. 
> - Lars
> 
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: koro.chen@mediatek.com (Koro Chen)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH] ASoC: Modify check condition of multiple bindings of components
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:31:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1444962713.31246.6.camel@mtksdaap41> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561FA979.6030407@metafoo.de>

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 15:26 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 02:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > 
> >> It was never intended that it is possible to bind a component to multiple
> >> cards. That it was possible was a bug that was overlooked and some people
> >> tried to do it which caused apparently random crashes later on, caused by
> >> the data structure corruption. This is why we added the check to catch this
> >> kind of mistake early and to avoid the crashes.
> > 
> > This is true, but I do think it's something that we should have some
> > story on supporting for some of this hardware that has a bunch of
> > channels in one IP block that can't really interact with each other.
> > It's going to make it a lot easier for people to think about the
> > hardware and how to describe it.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't support it, just that we can't support it with
> the current code. And adding support for it will require a fair bit of
> restructuring.
> 
> If a hardware block as multiple independent channels the best approach in my
> opinion is to register multiple components (Which we can't do at the moment,
> because there can only be one component per device). From a framework point
Yes... I have tried to register 2 platforms in my ASoC platform driver
but alsa considered they are the same platform since they are from the
same device.
> of view there is no difference between a single device with multiple
> independent channels and multiple independent devices with one channel each.
> Both have the same logical topology.
> 
Yes, but in my case there is only one HW, one set of registers, and one
set of clocks, it should be a single device node in the device tree. 
> - Lars
> 
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Koro Chen <koro.chen@mediatek.com>
To: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	<srv_heupstream@mediatek.com>, <tiwai@suse.de>,
	<s.hauer@pengutronix.de>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	<p.zabel@pengutronix.de>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH] ASoC: Modify check condition of multiple bindings of components
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:31:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1444962713.31246.6.camel@mtksdaap41> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561FA979.6030407@metafoo.de>

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 15:26 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 02:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > 
> >> It was never intended that it is possible to bind a component to multiple
> >> cards. That it was possible was a bug that was overlooked and some people
> >> tried to do it which caused apparently random crashes later on, caused by
> >> the data structure corruption. This is why we added the check to catch this
> >> kind of mistake early and to avoid the crashes.
> > 
> > This is true, but I do think it's something that we should have some
> > story on supporting for some of this hardware that has a bunch of
> > channels in one IP block that can't really interact with each other.
> > It's going to make it a lot easier for people to think about the
> > hardware and how to describe it.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't support it, just that we can't support it with
> the current code. And adding support for it will require a fair bit of
> restructuring.
> 
> If a hardware block as multiple independent channels the best approach in my
> opinion is to register multiple components (Which we can't do at the moment,
> because there can only be one component per device). From a framework point
Yes... I have tried to register 2 platforms in my ASoC platform driver
but alsa considered they are the same platform since they are from the
same device.
> of view there is no difference between a single device with multiple
> independent channels and multiple independent devices with one channel each.
> Both have the same logical topology.
> 
Yes, but in my case there is only one HW, one set of registers, and one
set of clocks, it should be a single device node in the device tree. 
> - Lars
> 
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-16  2:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-13 13:37 [RFC PATCH] ASoC: Modify check condition of multiple bindings of components Koro Chen
2015-10-13 13:37 ` Koro Chen
2015-10-13 13:37 ` Koro Chen
2015-10-13 13:44 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-13 13:44   ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-13 14:18   ` [alsa-devel] " Koro Chen
2015-10-13 14:18     ` Koro Chen
2015-10-13 14:18     ` Koro Chen
2015-10-13 14:42     ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-13 14:42       ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-14  1:19       ` Koro Chen
2015-10-14  1:19         ` Koro Chen
2015-10-14  1:19         ` Koro Chen
2015-10-14  9:00         ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-14  9:00           ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-15 12:10           ` Mark Brown
2015-10-15 12:10             ` Mark Brown
2015-10-15 12:49             ` Koro Chen
2015-10-15 12:49               ` Koro Chen
2015-10-15 12:49               ` Koro Chen
2015-10-15 13:26             ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-15 13:26               ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-10-16  2:31               ` Koro Chen [this message]
2015-10-16  2:31                 ` Koro Chen
2015-10-16  2:31                 ` Koro Chen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1444962713.31246.6.camel@mtksdaap41 \
    --to=koro.chen@mediatek.com \
    --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=lars@metafoo.de \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=srv_heupstream@mediatek.com \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.