Re: [PATCH] ASOC:DAPM: extend dapm kcontrol to support runtime route update

[Nenghua Cao <nhcao@marvell.com>]

On 12/13/2013 07:37 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:33:46 +0800,
> Nenghua Cao wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi, Mark:
>> > 
>> > On 12/12/2013 07:07 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 02:56:08AM -0800, Nenghua Cao wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > > Don't top post.  Please also fix your mailer to word wrap within
>>> > > paragaphs, it makes your mails much more legible.
>>> > > 
>> > It is my fault and Thanks for your kindly reminder. I just made my
>> > mailer work as community's request.
>>>>> > >> >    For common mix/mux which aren't related with DPCM, it doesn't need
>>>>> > >> >    to do DPCM update. And it still can use the old controls. But for
>>>>> > >> >    the mix/mux which impacts fe<->be link, they need to do this works.
>>>>> > >> >    For them, they call use the new set of controls. I think it can
>>>>> > >> >    make our code has better backward-compatibility.
>>> > > How does this improve backwards compatibility?
>> > My thought is that we distinguish different requirement through flag
>> > (you can find dpcm_checked in my patch).
> The question is rather what do you mean as "backward compatibility".
> 
> Usually backward compatibility is concerned when something new breaks
> the existing ones.  In your case, always updating DPCM would work,
> too, even without an extra flag; it's just suboptimal.
> 
Yes, you are right. I add this flag only for avoiding the traversing
dai_link in soc_dpcm_runtime_update(). So you think this work is
unnecessary. I will make another patch which will do DPCM runtime update
always. Is it Ok?
> 
> Takashi

Thanks