On 24. 10. 22 16:08, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
If we can report a less confusing driver name to the users, that's fine
with me, but I don't get the idea of using the driver name as the first
criterion to identify a setup, you'll also need the card name so why not
use the card name as primary criterion?
It is not usable for the USB driver where every model has own name set
from USB descriptors for example.
How would you use UCM in that context, the use of a driver name would
lead to a lot of abstraction potentially, isn't there a risk of not
being able to detect specific skews that need variants?
The fine USB device ID matching is used. This USB device ID is in the
components string. But yes, it's the next level after the basic lookup.
We can use a similar mechanism as we did with
CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_USER_FRIENDLY_LONG_NAMES . The distributions can
enable this when packages when UCM configs are updated. Also, new
drivers should use new driver name scheme, it's only for the current
drivers.
That would be good indeed. FWIW, I reverted this patch in our
development tree to remove confusing error messages that make tests fail.
That would not be an Intel only option though, right? There are tons of
other ASoC machine drivers who don't set the driver name at all, so it
could take time to make that transition.
Yes, but we need to start somewhere. It seems that a most of ASoC drivers do
not use card names bigger than 15 characters (I noted this recently in UCM).
Jaroslav
--
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxxx>
Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.
