Hi Mark again
I will take Summer Vacation from tomorrow in 1 week.
I'm sorry for my long term no respoce then.
> Thank you for your feedback
>
> > The -mf- there reads unfortunately differently in English so we
> > definitely don't want to go with that one I think. I do agree that it's
> > hard to come up with a name, possibly rich-link-graph-card or something?
>
> Thanks. It is a little bit long name, so,
> rich-graph-card, or rich-link-card is nice for me.
>
> > Well, I think the big issue from a DT point of view is needing to add a
> > new generic card at all - there's much less problem with keeping the old
> > ones around than there is with keeping on adding new generic cards.
>
> I guess/hope the DT issue will be disappear if new card can keep
> existing binding...
>
> > Actually, looking at the bindings documents I'm not 100% clear what the
> > differences in the binding (as opposed to the code that parses it) are -
> > this may just be the examples being too cut down to show them. I'm not
> > 100% clear why we have the three different compatibles in there, that
> > feels like something that should just be in the graph description,
>
> Ohhhh, yes, indeed. I didn't notice about that !
> If my understanding was correct, it can be something like ...
>
> card {
> compatible = "rich-graph-card";
> ...
> links = ...
>
> mix {
> ...
> }
> multi {
> ...
> }
> codec2codec {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> Hmm, nice idea.
>
> > especially codec2codec since we might have for example both a DSP and a
> > codec2codec link in the same card.
>
> It is possible in my understanding, but am I misunderstanding ?
>
> ... is it naming issue ?
> In my understanding, both "DSP" and "MIXer" are using "DPCM" connection,
> but driver/sample is calling it as "DSP".
> I think "MIXer" and "Codec2Codec" in same card is possible.
> I'm not sure about "DSP" case...
>
> Thank you for your help !!
>
> Best regards
> ---
> Kuninori Morimoto
