On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:45:37PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:50:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > How does this relate to the virtio audio spec that's currently under > > review? > The spec under discussion is only for simple audio virtualisation with fixed > roles and topologies. With our approach guests get access to advanced DSP > capabilities. The virtualisation approach under discussion can be a fallback > for cases when no DSP has been detected on the host. So they're orthogonal :/ Have you proposed your spec yet? > > It looks to be doing something much lower level than that. > > I am concerned that this looks to be exposing DPCM as a virtio ABI, > > we're trying to replace it as an internal API never mind ABI. > You mean that our approach works at the widget level, which is a part of the > DPCM API? Well there is a translation layer between our ABI and DPCM. And by > virtue of the same argument don't we already have DPCM as an ABI on the > opposite side of SOF - in its IPC ABI? Largely this virtualisation approach > doesn't add new interfaces, it re-uses the SOF IPC ABI, which is also one of > its advantages. Please bear in mind that the page you linked to is very high level and I've not seen the actual spec or anything. The page and your mails both talk about DPCM so it sounds like that's a part of the interface.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
