From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>
Subject: Re: Confusing about Playback/Capture, CODEC/CODEC links, and snd_soc_dapm_link_dai_widgets()
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:41:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120601214146.GD4258@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120531233702.GA30717@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1070 bytes --]
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:37:09AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:49:26PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > But if (2) is correct, I wonder why soc_dapm_stream_event()'s first if
> > statement appears to consider the playback_widget of both sides of the
> > DAI to be coupled; wouldn't one side's playback widget be coupled to the
> > other side's capture widget?
> The DAIs on CPUs have the opposite sense to DAIs on CODECs. In a
> traditional CPU<->CODEC link we do connect the two playback widgets
> directly to each other. The current code isn't correct, it's not
> normally noticable since most of the time the CPU DAI end of the link is
> a baseband which doesn't do anything real and is always activated
> bidirectionally so it really makes no odds which widget we look at.
> I'll fix this tomorrow.
Sorry, I misremembered the context here (should've looked at the code
not the quote!). The current code is correct, it will only be used in
the case where we have a "real CPU" not the CODEC<->CODEC case so it's
doing the right thing.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-01 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-31 22:49 Confusing about Playback/Capture, CODEC/CODEC links, and snd_soc_dapm_link_dai_widgets() Stephen Warren
2012-05-31 23:37 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-01 17:01 ` Liam Girdwood
2012-06-04 13:02 ` Sebastien LEDUC
2012-06-04 16:57 ` Liam Girdwood
2012-06-01 21:41 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2012-06-01 22:31 ` Confusion " Stephen Warren
2012-06-05 20:24 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-05 20:48 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 21:17 ` Stephen Warren
2012-06-05 21:34 ` Mark Brown
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=20120601214146.GD4258@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=lrg@ti.com \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox