On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:03:44PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:18:06PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:32:41AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > But neither of these is a CODEC so why would the CODEC flag be set in > > > the DAI? Unless your "Codec" here is genuinely the CODEC rather than > > > the CPU DAI connected to the CODEC in which case surely this is just a > > > normal DAI link? > > > Sorry Mark for late reply.. > > > You are right this is like a normal link, and yes that is _exactly_ we need, > > but we also need parameters to be specified for this as this is hostless. > > > The moment I add 'params" core will do different connections which do not > > work for us. > > > I am okay if you have something else in mind which solves our problem :) > > Isn't this what the DPCM fixup() is supposed to handle? Yes you are right but it doesn't. Fixup will be invoked only when someone invoked hw_params, but for the loop in this case since we register a PCM and not a dai-link widget the DAPM trigger for loop patch does not find any dailink widgets and does not invoke hw_params or fixup. Looking at this I think we should modify the snd_soc_dapm_new_dai_widgets() and add template.event, but not sure if it was cause other issues.. > As I keep > saying I really think these systems would work a lot better if they were > representing the DSP as a CODEC, that makes everything much more > consistent and less riddled with special cases. The problem is manging DMAs and params, today codec approach does not help me with these, but yes I will keep looking for ways to enhnace to core as discussed in the ELC with you :) Thanks -- ~Vinod
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel