On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 03:07:22PM +0000, Jiaxin Yu (俞家鑫) wrote: > On Fri, 2022-11-25 at 12:18 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 05:44:11PM +0800, Jiaxin Yu wrote: > > I'm a little unclear why this is being implemented as a DAPM > > operation > > rather than having the driver forward the PCM trigger op if it's > > needed? > > Or alternatively if a DAPM callback is needed why not provide one > > directly rather than hooking into the trigger function - that's going > > to > > be called out of sequence with the rest of DAPM and be potentially > > confusing given the very different environments that trigger and DAPM > > operations run in. A quick glance at the it6505 driver suggests it'd > > be > > happier with a DAPM callback. > Let me describe the hardware connection about mt8186 with it6505(hdmi) > and rt1015p(speakers). > ==>it6505 > = > DL1(FE) ==>I2S3(BE) = > = > ==>rt1015p > They shared the same one i2s port, but we'd like to control them > separately. So if hdmi-codec use the PCM trigger op, whne we turn on > the speaker, hdmi-codec's PCM trigger op is also executed, resulting in > sound on both devices. > Is there another way to control them separately? Thank you. If you just need power control for one or both devices then the machine driver can add a _PIN_SWITCH() on the output of the device, that'll cause DAPM to keep the device powered down when not in use. That should work well with the suggestion to provide a DAPM callback instead of a a trigger operation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
