From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE96ECE58D for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alsa0.perex.cz (alsa0.perex.cz [77.48.224.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D632721848 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alsa-project.org header.i=@alsa-project.org header.b="eiKny57X" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D632721848 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (alsa1.perex.cz [207.180.221.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1852A1675; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:39:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa0.perex.cz 1852A1675 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alsa-project.org; s=default; t=1570635609; bh=tacDbGdR7TCRIyRuIWeJg5zYrrMayG+imO7i+Mc+hqo=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=eiKny57XdAjHVaw520yGjP8rIn/aYcOMfRbZdfeuAQcTWFMJkZsG3vuQJ0JX/SCrQ 9+h95cGauyNxrSuncYr40umAhnQgBjoAB5rbr9YTBK9jaL7By162KBNu0zbuYEAPTV 6BLblwnxxa4ro8VLVcboHmoKJT3stmKDzHQRpWiY= Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2ECF8060E; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:37:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) id C7155F80610; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:37:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84BA9F800AE for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:37:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa1.perex.cz 84BA9F800AE X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Oct 2019 08:37:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,276,1566889200"; d="scan'208";a="223620854" Received: from mmahler-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.30.188]) ([10.251.30.188]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2019 08:37:31 -0700 To: Kuninori Morimoto , Mark Brown References: <87r23mgxl7.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart Message-ID: <2a28be44-91ad-c140-062b-4d14982042e9@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:20:42 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r23mgxl7.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> Content-Language: en-US Cc: Linux-ALSA Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] Question about DPCM FE vs BE X-BeenThere: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Alsa-devel mailing list for ALSA developers - http://www.alsa-project.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" On 10/9/19 2:57 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > Hi ALSA ML > > In my understanding, DPCM needs FE and BE. > And, one FE can have multiple BE, and one BE can have multiple FE. > > My question this time is that one snd_soc_pcm_runtime can be both > FE and BE in the same time (= Sometimes FE, sometimes BE) ?? > > In my understanding, it never happen. > But, is this correct ? It is my understanding that the current code would not support a case where a FE is also a BE. That said, do we want to preclude it? at some point we probably want to get rid of the FE/BE distinction and have 'domains' that can be chained. So it may not be a good thing to cast a restriction in stone. If at some point we need a list of upstream/downstream clients maybe we should keep this. > > I'm asking because do we need .be_clients/.fe_clients ? > If one pcm_runtime can't be FE / BE in the same time, > just .clients is enough I think. > > static int dpcm_be_connect(...) > { > ... > - list_add(&dpcm->list_be, &fe->dpcm[stream].be_clients); > - list_add(&dpcm->list_fe, &be->dpcm[stream].fe_clients); > + list_add(&dpcm->list_be, &fe->dpcm[stream].clients); > + list_add(&dpcm->list_fe, &be->dpcm[stream].clients); > ... > } > > > Thank you for your help !! > Best regards > --- > Kuninori Morimoto > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-devel mailing list > Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org > https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel > _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel