Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sound tree with the arm-soc tree

From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>,
	ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sound tree with the arm-soc tree
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:43:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190225164338.GB13898@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2Q7OAAYCU01TNpHR2SM7N=YunyqZEihSESnQwxzL5=Vg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:38:50PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 12:24 PM Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com> wrote:

> > The motivation for adding custom sound card name is following,
> > 1. When for boards, multiple HDMI/DP ports are exposed, it is sometimes
> >     necessary to know the default port or any customization for that matter.
> >     Audio userspace can distinguish based on the sound card names.
> > 2. Multiple sound cards can coexist for a platform, the indication of
> > particular
> >     audio path is useful.
> > 3. It can help to customize audio paths.
> >     Generally people use "*,model" property in DT to name the sound complex.
> >     Ex: "samsung,model" [sound/soc/samsung/snow.c]
> >         "rockchip,model" [sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_rt5645.c]

It's also useful since sound cards can be electically identical but
prefer different configuration due to the plastics (eg, a smaller
speaker was fitted, different outputs have different labels or playing
the speaker at full volume causes some models to have unpleasant effects
while others handle it fine).

> My impression here is that the idea of passing a model name
> through DT is well established, but for new stuff, we probably
> want to standardize on plain "model" rather than "$vendor,model".

Yes.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel