Re: [PATCH 3/6] ASoC: amd: SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C does not build rt5682

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2473 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:24:42PM +0000, RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO wrote:
> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 5:48 PM

I'm not seeing any new text in here?

> To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>; RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO <Vishnuvardhanrao.Ravulapati@amd.com>
> Cc: moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM... <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>; Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>; open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>; Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>; Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>; Mukunda, Vijendar <Vijendar.Mukunda@amd.com>; Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>; Agrawal, Akshu <Akshu.Agrawal@amd.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ASoC: amd: SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C does not build rt5682
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/28/20 7:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 06:59:50AM +0000, RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO wrote:
> >
> >> So Actually for rt5682 codec Now in 5.8 there are three flags :
> >> SND_SOC_RT5682
> >> SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C
> >> SND_SOC_RT5682_SDW
> >
> >> But till 5.7.8 we have
> >> SND_SOC_RT5682
> >> SND_SOC_RT5682_SDW
> >
> >> So in our design we were using SND_SOC_RT5682 which build
> >> snd_soc_rt5682.ko Creates the respective codec_dais as defined in
> >> that .ko
> >
> >> If we use SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C we get snd_soc_rt5682_I2c.ko , it is not creating the expected codec_dai links.
> >
> > Could you be more specific about the way in which "it is not creating
> > the expected codec_dai links" please?  What are you expecting to
> > happen and what happens instead?  Do you see any error messages for example?
> >
> >> As there are three flags defined in codecs, I expect that previous
> >> one which we were using(SND_SOC_RT5682) is not a wrong flag and I
> >> expect to use
> >> SND_SOC_RT5682 as it is still available.
> >
> > Given that the core module does not register with any bus it is
> > difficult to see how that could possibly work - the core module
> > doesn't contain a driver at all.  Have you tested this change?
> 
> I share Mark's point. Have you tested this change on top of Mark's tree, or only on top of the stable kernel?
> Ok. I will drop that patch and send the other series.
> 
> Thanks,
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]