On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:34:37 +0200, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:49:28PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:37:47PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > In any case, this doesn't (and can't) solve the CEC problem, so it's not > > > a solution to the problem at hand. > > > > Sorry am not sure I follow the reasons for that, wouldn't CEC be another > > slave in such an interface? I though component fwk did allow us to have > > multiple slaves.. > > Not with the way you're using the component helper here. > > I guess that not all my message is being read, because people keep > replying half-way down my messages... > > You can only register a struct device _once_ as a slave device. > > With the way you're using it here for audio, you're registering the > i915 DRM device as a slave component device, and the audio side as > the master. That means the audio master can bind to the DRM slave > component device. > > You can't then have a CEC master bind to the i915 DRM slave device > (it's already bound to the audio master device), and you can't > register the i915 DRM device as a second slave component device. > It becomes indistinguishable from the first, and there's no way > to tell which of the two different 'ops' structures should be used > with which master. > > I said this in my message 20151021140307.GE32532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > which was two of my replies ago in this sub-thread. Can't the limitation of single slave dev be extended simply? e.g. add some matching semantics to component_master_add_child() like a shared key in both master and slave, and let assign only the matched slave. I might think of the problem too easy, but didn't see any obvious restriction in the code except for that... thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
