Hi Pierre-Louis, Mark
Thank you for clarifying the issue.
> allow me to give you another counter example, beyond the AEC reference I
> mentioned earlier. It's not uncommon for CPU DAIs to have loopback
> capabilities, which are used for tests on boards where the codec has no
> capture capabilities. I think it's a feature that needs to be allowed,
> not a 'wrong setting'.
This helped me to understand the situation.
> > For now we're kind of stuck, what I would suggest is just to remove the
> > extra check that both CPU and codec dai can support a direction, and
> > move on with the other cleanups suggested by Morimoto-san.
>
> Oh, I agree - my point is that as things stand the framework really
> can't cope with what needs expressing so we need these things that don't
> look quite right.
I think same situation can be happen not only DPCM, but normal connection,
too ? And my personally want to have validation check as much as possible,
and automatically validation without Card/rtd flags.
In case of ignoring Codec check on DPCM, it allows unexpected direction,
I think. For example if it is not using dummy DAI, and in case of CPU can
playback/capture, Codec can playback, and user expect playback only,
in this case unexpected "capture" will be available. He need to add
playback_only flag, but it is not good for me.
Can we avoid validation check if DAI has some kind of new flag, like
ignore_pair ?
pseudo code is like this
if (valid(cpu, PLAYBACK))
has_cpu_playback = 1;
if (valid(cpu, CAPTURE))
has_cpu_capture = 1;
if (valid(codec, PLAYBACK))
has_codec_playback = 1;
if (valid(codec, CAPTURE))
has_codec_capture = 1;
if (cpu->ignore_pair) {
has_codec_playback = 1;
has_codec_capture = 1;
}
if (codec->ignore_pair) {
has_cpu_playback = 1;
has_cpu_capture = 1;
}
Or more detail ignore_pair_playback, ignore_pair_capture
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Renesas Electronics
Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto
