On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote: > On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > I don't follow why the DSP support requires a new driver? Shouldn't > > all > > systems with the DSP present be using it? > We need to keep the solution without DSP, so we can replace DSP > solution with non-DSP when it's required. But when we introduce SOF for > DSP control, there will be more routes in machine driver and device > tree usage is different from the original. So it's hard to share the > same driver for these two solutions. We shouldn't be requiring people to load completely different drivers based on software configuration, what if a system wants to bypass the DSP in some but not all configurations? Can we not just have controls allowing users to route round the DSP where appropriate?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
