On 23.03.2021 16:18, Codrin.Ciubotariu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 23.03.2021 14:15, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> Dne 23. 03. 21 v 12:43 Codrin Ciubotariu napsal(a): >> >>> To achieve this, the first thing needed is to detect whether a HW >>> constraint rule is enforced by a FE or a BE DAI. This means that >>> snd_pcm_hw_rule_add() needs to be able to differentiate between the two >>> type of DAIs. For this, the runtime pointer to struct snd_pcm_runtime is >>> replaced with a pointer to struct snd_pcm_substream, to be able to reach >>> substream->pcm->internal to differentiate between FE and BE DAIs. >> >> Think about other not-so-invasive solution. What about to use >> 'runtime->private_data' (struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *) to determine FE / BE? >> > > I think struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime * is placed in > substream->private_data, while runtime->private_data is used more by the > platform drivers. runtime->trigger_master could be an idea, but it looks > like it's initialized just before the trigger callback is called, way > after the constraint rules are added and I am not sure it can be > initialized earlier... > > Best regards, > Codrin > How about using a different API for ASoC only, since that's the place of DPCM. Only drivers that do not involve DSPs would have to to be changed to call the new snd_pcm_hw_rule_add() variant. Another solution would be to have a different snd_soc_pcm_runtime for BE interfaces (with a new hw_constraints member of course). What do you think? Thanks! Codrin
