Re: [PATCH 1/3] ALSA: pcm: add IEC958 channel status update

[Moise Gergaud <moise.gergaud@st.com>]

On 12/03/2015 01:03 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:13:04 +0100,
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:58:14AM +0100, Moise Gergaud wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2015 08:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> Again, I'm not happy with this change.  The intention here is that we
>>>> validate all arguments before we change anything.  This breaks that
>>>> principle.
>>>>
>>> We propose this change for compressed mode (IEC61937/non linear PCM).
>>> In case of compressed mode, iec958 channel status byte 0 bit1 = 1, then we
>>> cannot use snd_pcm_create_iec958_consumer.
>>
>> Why can you not use snd_pcm_create_iec958_consumer() for this case?  You
>> are allowed to modify the values you get afterwards in order to handle
>> this case if you so wish to toggle this bit.
>>
>> However, if you are using data mode, you really should be using the AES
>> bytes passed by the application through alsalib and into the kernel via
>> the IEC958 controls.  There are three controls specified for this:
>>
>> SNDRV_CTL_NAME_IEC958("", PLAYBACK, CON_MASK) - the bits which can be
>> changed for consumer mode.
>> SNDRV_CTL_NAME_IEC958("", PLAYBACK, PRO_MASK) - the bits which can be
>> changed for professional mode.
>> SNDRV_CTL_NAME_IEC958("", PLAYBACK, DEFAULT) - the value of the changable
>> bits.
>>
>> When using this, it is userspace's responsibility to set the sample rate
>> appropriately for the stream.
>>
>> The only case to use snd_pcm_create_iec958_consumer() is to generate the
>> status bytes for PCM audio, where the userspace API doesn't facilitiate
>> generating and/or passing the AES status bytes.
>
> That's true.  OTOH, in most drivers, we try to be kind not to be too
> strict for this requirement and adjust the status bits accordingly.
> This comes from the lessons we learned how user-space doesn't care the
> things.
>
> So, if we want to keep that good uncle attitude, this change doesn't
> look so bad to me.
>
shall I deliver a new version of this patch with header correction or 
shall I abandon this patch?
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
>