> 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
There are two options
a) we don't even try to test the codec-cpu match in terms of
capabilities. That means the same behavior as today.
b) we add a chicken bit for platforms to disable the codec-cpu match if
it breaks specific platforms.
The problem with b) is that we don't know what platforms will break. I
reported one example that was caught by our CI, but there could be
additional Chromebooks impacted, who knows.
My vote is a).
