>>> Specifically, the QC ADSP can support all potential endpoints that are
>>> exposed by the audio data interface. This includes, feedback endpoints
>>> (both implicit and explicit) as well as the isochronous (data)
>>> endpoints.
>>
>> implicit feedback means support for capture. This is confusing...
>>
>
> I mean, a USB device can expose a capture path, but as of now, we won't
> enable the offloading to the audio DSP for it. However, if we're
> executing playback, and device does support implicit feedback, we will
> pass that along to the audio DSP to utilize.
Not following. Implicit feedback means a capture stream *SHALL* be
started. Are you saying this capture stream is hidden and handled at the
DSP level only? If yes, what prevents you from exposing the capture
stream to userspace as well?
I must be missing something.
>>> +static const struct snd_soc_dai_ops q6usb_ops = {
>>> + .probe = msm_dai_q6_dai_probe,
>>> + .prepare = q6afe_dai_prepare,
>>> + .hw_params = q6usb_hw_params,
>>
>> this is rather confusing with two different layers used for hw_params
>> and prepare? Additional comments or explanations wouldn't hurt.
>>
>
> I thought this was how the ASoC design was. Each DAI defined for a
> particular path has it own set of callbacks implemented to bring up any
> required resources for that entity. So in this case, it initializes the
> "cpu" DAI, which is the main component that handles communication with
> the audio DSP.
Usually prepare and hw_params rely on the type of DAI callbacks, but
here you are mixing "q6afe" and "q6usb" which are shown in your Patch0
diagram as "cpu" and "codec" dais respectively. I don't think it's
correct to tie the two, it's a clear layering violation IMHO. The codec
dai .prepare should not invoke something that modifies the state of the
CPU dai, which should have its own .prepare callback.
