On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 06:40:26PM +1100, Matt Flax wrote: > ok, I don't quite follow you, but I think what you are saying is that there > is a trade off between simplifying things for the end user and core > complexity leading to developer sloppiness ? > I believe you are saying that it is a rare case to require format asymmetry > in the same DAI link. For that reason introducing extra functionality into > the core may not be worth while ? What I am saying is that we already have a perfectly good way of representing separate TX and RX DAIs which is far more flexible than your bodge and that if there is something to be improved on the userspace interface we should improve that rather than add this which seems like a bodge. > > No, my advice is to go down that route if you are doing this. I'm just > > not convinced that it's going to work reliably since this all sounds > > rather shaky. > OK - I can try to go down that route. However I would like to confirm that > having a codec to codec link doesn't require the original codec or CPU > drivers to have separate DAIs for playback and capture ? In my case both the > CPU and Codec drivers have single DAIs for both streams. OK, that probably won't help then :/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
