From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kuninori Morimoto Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 8/8] ASoC: add snd-soc-dummy DT support Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <87d2bmpwi2.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@gmail.com> References: <87fvgriqrb.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@gmail.com> <874mx7iqgt.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <53F9A6EE.5070005@metafoo.de> <871ts4nmki.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@gmail.com> <20140826062558.GR17528@sirena.org.uk> <87wq9vmyyc.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@gmail.com> <20140826091120.GC17528@sirena.org.uk> <53FC5105.6070901@metafoo.de> <20140826094211.GF17528@sirena.org.uk> <87r403mtip.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@gmail.com> <20140826105028.GK17528@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140826105028.GK17528-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen , Kuninori Morimoto , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linux-ALSA , Simon , Liam Girdwood List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark > > > > >If we're already specifying the DAI links for the (D)PCM code it seems > > > > >like we shouldn't also have to put DAPM routes for them in DT as well. > > > > > Yes, and I think we shouldn't use anything except for datahsheet pin names > > > > in the devicetree routing, because otherwise we are leaking driver > > > > implementation details. > > > It came from snd_soc_of_parse_audio_routing() > > Do you mean this function itself is not good ? > > That's intended to be routing analogue pins to each other, not for DAI > links in DPCM - for DAI links we should be getting this information from > elsewhere. > > > > While I agree with the sentiment for this when it comes to DAIs we > > > probably want to use the name the interfaces get in the documentation > > > rather than pin names since they involve multiple pins working together. > > > Sorry, but what does your "interfaces get in the documentation" mean ? > > If the documentation refers to the interface as for example "I2S0" then > the DT should refer to it as I2S0 too. Hmm... This means we need update DPCM interface ? In my understanding, DPCM needs DAPM routing information somehow in final stage. But, we want to specify it as "DAI link" like interface. Now, I have many questions. If my understand is correct, my prev patch is OK for "DAPM final stage", but we need wrapper for "DPCM interface" ? It will exchanges "I2S0" to "ak4642 Playback" internally. (And exchanges format too ?) Is this needed as "DT interface" ? Can non-DT code use "ak4642 Playback" directly ? I'm wondering that some driver is using DPCM already (in non-DT) in upstream. If we can use "I2S0" interface, it is understandable if FE/BE was FE cpu: CPU-A codec: dummy BE cpu: dummy codec: Codec-A But, How about this case ? FE cpu: CPU-A codec: Codec-A BE cpu: CPU-B codec: Codec-B -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html