Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] ASoC: dt-bindings: mediatek,mt8188-mt6359: remove ADDA_BE from link-name

[Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@baylibre.com>]

On 24/05/2023 15:45, Trevor Wu (吳文良) wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 15:28 +0200, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
>> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
>> you have verified the sender or the content.
>>
>>
>> On 24/05/2023 04:25, Trevor Wu (吳文良) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 18:26 +0200, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
>>>> On 23/05/2023 04:19, Trevor Wu wrote:
>>>>> ADDA_BE is used to connect to mt6359. For machine mt8188-
>>>>> mt6359,
>>>>> codec
>>>>> for ADDA_BE must be mt6359 which are configured on the machine
>>>>> driver.
>>>>> Besides, ADDA_BE is divided into two dais, UL_SRC_BE and
>>>>> DL_SRC_BE.
>>>>> As a result, remove ADDA_BE from items of link-name.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Trevor Wu<trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how "DL_SRC_BE" and "UL_SRC_BE" links are
>>>> done.
>>>> Why these dais don't replace "ADDA_BE" in this binding ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alexandre
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>> Because the sound card is mt8188-mt6359, the codec for these two
>>> links
>>> must be mt6359. Thus, I specifiy the codec in machine driver
>>> directly.
>>> If the codec is changed, there will be a new sound card and binding
>>> file. In conclusion, the codec won't be updated via dts, and that's
>>> why
>>> I don't just replace ADDA_BE in this binding.
>>>
>>> Do you suggest me add some information in the commit message?
>>
>> No it's fine, I'm just trying to understand.
>>
>> When you say "I specifiy the codec in machine driver directly", you
>> are talking about this change ?
>>
>> +               } else if (strcmp(dai_link->name, "DL_SRC_BE") == 0
>> ||
>> +                          strcmp(dai_link->name, "UL_SRC_BE") == 0)
>> {
>> +                       if (!init_mt6359) {
>> +                               dai_link->init = mt8188_mt6359_init;
>>
>> I'm asking because the equivalent was done here:
>>
>> -       [DAI_LINK_ADDA_BE] = {
>> -               .name = "ADDA_BE",
>> +       [DAI_LINK_DL_SRC_BE] = {
>> +               .name = "DL_SRC_BE",
>>                  .no_pcm = 1,
>>                  .dpcm_playback = 1,
>> -               .dpcm_capture = 1,
>> -               .init = mt8188_mt6359_init,
>> -               SND_SOC_DAILINK_REG(adda),
>> +               SND_SOC_DAILINK_REG(dl_src),
>>
>> So I'm wondering why "ADDA_BE" & "DPTX_BE" & "ETDM3_OUT_BE" are in
>> the
>> enum list of the binding since the codec is already specified in
>> machine driver too. I probably miss something but I don't know what.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> The following code snippet is cut from [PATCH v2 1/7].
> 
>   /* BE */
> -SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(adda,
> -                    DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_CPU("ADDA")),
> +SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(dl_src,
> +                    DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_CPU("DL_SRC")),
>                       DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_CODEC("mt6359-sound",
>                                                     "mt6359-snd-codec-
> aif1")),
>                       DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_EMPTY()));
> @@ -140,6 +140,12 @@ SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(pcm1,
>                       DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_DUMMY()),
>                       DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_EMPTY()));
>   
> +SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(ul_src,
> +                    DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_CPU("UL_SRC")),
> +                    DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_CODEC("mt6359-sound",
> +                                                  "mt6359-snd-codec-
> aif1")),
> +                    DAILINK_COMP_ARRAY(COMP_EMPTY()));
> 
> 
> This is why I talk about specifying the codec it connects in the
> machine driver.
> If you check other dai-links, you would see COMP_DUMMY() in the
> COMP_CODEC() field.

Ok thanks for the explanation. If I understand well, ADDA_BE could have 
been removed from the enum list before your serie because the codec was 
already specified for ADDA_BE.

Reviewed-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@baylibre.com>

-- 
Regards,
Alexandre