From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Lai Subject: ucm: hardware resource arbitration Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:49:51 -0700 Message-ID: <504EDF0F.70809@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F10260311 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:50:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.64.136.183] (pdmz-ns-snip_218_1.qualcomm.com [192.168.218.1]) by mostmsg01.qualcomm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 127DB10004AA for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:50:03 -0700 (PDT) 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: alsa-devel List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi, I have two use cases which can acquire same CODEC path but they cannot run concurrently through mixing. When such scenario does arise, arbitration is required based on priority of use cases. On the other hand, same use cases on different platform may use different CODEC paths so arbitration is not required. In order to decide whether arbitration is required, I think the best place to do so is in UCM. I looked at existing UCM APIs but I do not believe existing APIs have concept of arbitration built in. If I am wrong, how can I handle arbitration with existing UCM APIs. If I am correct, is there anyone looking to expand UCM APIs for similar scenario? Thanks Patrick -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.