From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lars@metafoo.de (Lars-Peter Clausen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:30:43 +0200 Subject: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: fsl: select SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_DMA where needed In-Reply-To: <4275868.O962kiiyJa@wuerfel> References: <6606961.lAGLvkNsEj@wuerfel> <4270904.84oGcCXL4B@wuerfel> <535F8594.40609@metafoo.de> <4275868.O962kiiyJa@wuerfel> Message-ID: <535FB793.5050200@metafoo.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/29/2014 03:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 29 April 2014 12:57:24 Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >> On 04/29/2014 12:37 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Tuesday 29 April 2014 07:07:33 Alexander Shiyan wrote: >>>> Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:12:14 +0200 ?? Arnd Bergmann : >>>>> On Tuesday 29 April 2014 00:35:41 Alexander Shiyan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I don't understand why this error happen, as well as I can not >>>>>> reproduce this... >>>>> >>>>> It's probably CONFIG_SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_DMA=m and CONFIG_SND_SOC_FSL_SSI=y then. >>>>> What is the intended behavior in this case? Should CONFIG_SND_SOC_FSL_SSI >>>>> be forced to be a module as well? >>>> >>>> Hmm, yes... >>>> I thought that I had already solved a similar problem for the earlier >>>> version of the patch ... >>> >>> How about this? >> >> Having FSL_SSI/FSL_SPDIF, but not SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_DMA does not make sense on >> iMX. >> So how about: >> >> select SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_DMA if SND_IMX_SOC >> >> and remove all the other 'select SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_DMA' statements. That's in >> my opinion much nicer. > > Yes, makes sense. Should I do another version of the patch? Yes. The patch should also add a select for SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_FIQ as that is used in the same way in the fsl_ssi driver. If anybody is afraid that selecting both SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_FIQ and SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_DMA by default adds too much overhead you could add boolean sub-options that allow to enable/disable support individually. - Lars