On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 12:19:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:09:59PM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:53:07AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 12:46:42PM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:12:02AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > These look like they should be DAPM controls since they're controlling > > > > > audio routing but they're being added as regular controls. > > > > > Sorry again. You suggest to create a new structure for these entries, > > > > for example: > > > > If that's how they fit into the routing for the device, yes - you'd need > > > to define the bypass mixer as well and set up appropraite routes. > > > I added this reg as regular controls because this reg is pretty generic > > as you can see this controll bypass of some output, not all. > > What do you think about? > > That sounds exactly like a DAPM control, please make them DAPM controls. Hi Mark, Perfect, thanks for your suggestion. I'll do it in V2. Tommaso -- Tommaso Merciai Embedded Linux Engineer tommaso.merciai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx __________________________________ Amarula Solutions SRL Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT T. +39 042 243 5310 info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.amarulasolutions.com
