Re: HDMI codec, way forward?

From: Jyri Sarha <jsarha@ti.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
	"Russell King - ARM Linux ‎" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	broonie@kernel.org, "Arnaud Pouliquen" <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>,
	lgirdwood@gmail.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	peter.ujfalusi@ti.com, tomi.valkeinen@ti.com
Subject: Re: HDMI codec, way forward?
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:14:53 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56254F3D.8010301@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151018150213.GN27370@localhost>

On 10/18/15 18:02, Vinod Koul wrote:
> Jyri's approach to add generic IEC code makes sense and drives reuse. I kind
> of didn't like adding rates and formats for DAIs, if they are placeholders
> then it is okay but otherwise we should read and set them from ELD. Also I

The idea is to provide all possible formats and rates to the ASoC core 
at the DAI registration phase. Then at the stream startup the currently 
valid ELD is scanned and and ALSA constraints are set according to it 
(with snd_pcm_hw_constraint_eld()).

> have reservations about hdmi_codec_ops and this being set by drm driver, why
> not use component interface for these things and let data be shared!

Russell already listed why the component interface is not good for 
registering optional subsystems. Any particular reason why passing 
function pointers over pdata should be considered bad? Can you suggest 
an alternative?

Best regards,
Jyri
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel