From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] ASoC DSP topology Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:39:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20150421163942.GM22845@sirena.org.uk> References: <1429217285.7100.18.camel@loki> <5535F513.8030902@ti.com> <20150421092812.GA22845@sirena.org.uk> <553642EC.8010400@ti.com> <1429629831.2797.9.camel@loki> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1422975347773881688==" Return-path: Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CEB261504 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:39:49 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1429629831.2797.9.camel@loki> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Liam Girdwood Cc: Peter Ujfalusi , Takashi Iwai , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "Koul, Vinod" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org --===============1422975347773881688== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sWvRP97dwRHm9fX+" Content-Disposition: inline --sWvRP97dwRHm9fX+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --sWvRP97dwRHm9fX+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVNn1NAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQubsH/RGpjkrc4EZzb+vNi7K5Ztnh 76ePxGfVkSTFjkYSz/lmsWRYHtBVICjEGh+DlWJ8e8m4W4gXfvlK/Y0y23UGO89F M/NC39wJem2zpJqkIwpw3BxWY7P12OtR7qQ+h5zyFbGfuKSVtlk3nP27tKYYDAHQ 8aA7NoJUTHF/jAHess7EhjPeXiCGTuEz+a6Xd0WQF2Rx2PZy5sjKsfdlpHOULSVG ObCB/B2ltVbEKhNpDRLXgTCMd92YjeHOtI/6gfk1Q0ZVJSe3SPZ18R3M4oZCdZUZ CSmvCpWwFRRkH1NnHXCmrXsLLc1Y14lz7xqERglzHT2TIpG/WUedxdiVdgQ7x2A= =imuL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sWvRP97dwRHm9fX+-- --===============1422975347773881688== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============1422975347773881688==--