Re: [RFC 0/4] ASoC DSP topology

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1309 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:23:51PM +0100, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 15:30 +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:

> > We have discussed this with Liam in the past: in my view the DSP topology (or
> > Dynamic FW) should be represented in the machine level and it would be the
> > best if the same image could carry card level widgets routes and links. If you
> > have big enough change in the FW and it's provided widgets/PCMs you would need
> > separate machine driver or at least a way to have different set of machine
> > level routes, widgets, links, etc for different DSP topology file.

> The component level allows us to target the physical component devices
> that may have runtime definable topologies. This would include codecs
> too, since some vendors are making codecs with built in FW (maybe TI
> too ?). The machine level more represents the board HW topology and this
> should be derived from ACPI or DT.

I tend to agree.  We should let each vendor provide their own topology
information - if they need to do something with this (which does seem
unlikely) system integrators should be on an equal footing with silicon
vendors here, and we shouldn't be encouraging systems where we need
per-board firmware definitions for the silicon components just because
the board has differences.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]