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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE45C433EF for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 09:40:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640D76125F for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 09:40:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236847AbhKHJnm (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2021 04:43:42 -0500 Received: from mailgw01.mediatek.com ([60.244.123.138]:56132 "EHLO mailgw01.mediatek.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236838AbhKHJnm (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2021 04:43:42 -0500 X-UUID: d313024215cb41fc999a422a7d299fe0-20211108 X-UUID: d313024215cb41fc999a422a7d299fe0-20211108 Received: from mtkcas11.mediatek.inc [(172.21.101.40)] by mailgw01.mediatek.com (envelope-from ) (Generic MTA with TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 256/256) with ESMTP id 753959213; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 17:40:53 +0800 Received: from mtkmbs10n1.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.34) by mtkmbs10n1.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:40:52 +0800 Received: from mtksdccf07 (172.21.84.99) by mtkmbs10n1.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.2.792.15 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:40:52 +0800 Message-ID: <4e876c89ee58cd1408511a34573005e3df359cd0.camel@mediatek.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code from machine driver From: YC Hung To: Mark Brown , Pierre-Louis Bossart CC: Trevor Wu , , , , , , , , , Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:40:52 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20211103100040.11933-1-trevor.wu@mediatek.com> <20211103100040.11933-4-trevor.wu@mediatek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MTK: N Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, I am YC Hung from Mediatek. Let me show our block diagram as the link below for the sound card which support SOF. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/62316/132476344-923dfe3a-5305-43e5-9fc8-c63d9ab2c58f.png In this sound card, there are two components , one is SOF based component and another is non-SOF based component(called Normal in the block). We want to reuse some BEs of Normal which can control Mediatek Audio Front End hardware power, clock , and DAI module and still keep some FEs(e.g. DPTX) then we can use it on the same sound card. Therefore, we use late_probe callback function "mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_card_late_probe" to add route path from SOF widget to non-SOF BEs. For two patches https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3217 and https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3236, we want to keep FEs of non-SOF components and can reuse them. Please let me know if I am not clear enough.Thanks. On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 16:41 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 11:16:05AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > On 11/5/21 10:38 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > We shouldn't be requiring people to load completely different > > > drivers > > > based on software configuration, what if a system wants to bypass > > > the > > > DSP in some but not all configurations? Can we not just have > > > controls > > > allowing users to route round the DSP where appropriate? > > It was my understanding the card relies on separate components > > - a SOF-based component to provide support for DSP-managed > > interfaces > > - a 'non-SOF' component for 'regular' interfaces not handled by the > > DSP. > > this was the basis for the changes discussed in > > https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3217 and > > https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3236 > > So it's actually supposed to end up as two different cards which > can't > possibly be interlinked? That doesn't seem to add up entirely given > that there's stuff being moved out of the current card, and I thought > these systems had a fairly comprehensive audio muxing capability. > Trevor, could you be a bit more specific about what's actually going > on > here physically please? > > > But indeed if the same interface can be managed by the DSP or not, > > depending on software choices it's a different problem altogether. > > We've looked into this recently, if the choice to involve the DSP > > or not > > is at the interface level, it might be better to have both > > components > > expose different DAIs for the same interface, with some sort of > > run-time > > mutual exclusion, so that all possible/allowed permutations are > > allowed. > > Yes, if the interface can optionally be completely hidden by the DSP > that's adding another layer of complication. > _______________________________________________ > Linux-mediatek mailing list > Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek