Hi Mark, I am YC Hung from Mediatek. Let me show our block diagram as the link below for the sound card which support SOF. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/62316/132476344-923dfe3a-5305-43e5-9fc8-c63d9ab2c58f.png In this sound card, there are two components , one is SOF based component and another is non-SOF based component(called Normal in the block). We want to reuse some BEs of Normal which can control Mediatek Audio Front End hardware power, clock , and DAI module and still keep some FEs(e.g. DPTX) then we can use it on the same sound card. Therefore, we use late_probe callback function "mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_card_late_probe" to add route path from SOF widget to non-SOF BEs. For two patches https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3217 and https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3236, we want to keep FEs of non-SOF components and can reuse them. Please let me know if I am not clear enough.Thanks. On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 16:41 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 11:16:05AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > On 11/5/21 10:38 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > 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? > > It was my understanding the card relies on separate components > > - a SOF-based component to provide support for DSP-managed > > interfaces > > - a 'non-SOF' component for 'regular' interfaces not handled by the > > DSP. > > this was the basis for the changes discussed in > > https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3217 and > > https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3236 > > So it's actually supposed to end up as two different cards which > can't > possibly be interlinked? That doesn't seem to add up entirely given > that there's stuff being moved out of the current card, and I thought > these systems had a fairly comprehensive audio muxing capability. > Trevor, could you be a bit more specific about what's actually going > on > here physically please? > > > But indeed if the same interface can be managed by the DSP or not, > > depending on software choices it's a different problem altogether. > > We've looked into this recently, if the choice to involve the DSP > > or not > > is at the interface level, it might be better to have both > > components > > expose different DAIs for the same interface, with some sort of > > run-time > > mutual exclusion, so that all possible/allowed permutations are > > allowed. > > Yes, if the interface can optionally be completely hidden by the DSP > that's adding another layer of complication. > _______________________________________________ > Linux-mediatek mailing list > Linux-mediatek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
