On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 07:45:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:40:41PM +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:15:54PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote: > > > > Userspace pcm, otherwise known as DPCM frontend, are merely that: > > > frontends. What they do is entirely defined by the routing defined by > > > the userspace (amixer and friends) > > > > So naming the interface in DT (the FW describing the HW) after what the > > > the userspace SW could possibly set later on is wrong. > > > > Bottom line: I have mixed feeling about this change. It could allow all > > > sort of bad names to be set. > > > > The only way it could make sense HW wise is if the only allowed names > > > where (fr|to)ddr_[abcd], which could help maps the interface and the > > > kcontrol. > > > The link-name is an optional parameter. Yes, you are right, it can be > > routed in a way that it no longer functions as a speaker in most cases. > > However, if you plan to use your board's dt for common purposes, you > > should not change the common names for DAI links. But if you know that > > you have a static setup for speakers, microphones, loopback, or other > > references (you 100% know it, because you are HW developer of this > > board), why not help the user understand the PCM device assignment in > > the easiest way? > > I would expect that the place to fix names based on the userspace > configuration is in whatever userspace is using to define it's > configurations, like a UCM config. > Honestly, I have tried to find a way to rename the PCM device name or mark it in some way (such as using a metainformation tag or any other method), but unfortunately, my search has been unsuccessful. > > Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the DT board developer to define > > specific DAIs and name them based on their own knowledge about HW and > > understanding of the board's usage purposes. > > DT seems like the wrong abstraction layer here. -- Thank you, Dmitry
