Hi,
On Nov 8 2016 17:11, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
3) Patches proposed:
Based on these observations, here are some patches that i tested in my
environment. There are complementary, and could answer to some
limitations mentioned above.
3-1) Alsa-utils patch
- iecset: allow to select control with device and sub-device numbers
This patch allows to access to 2 iec controls differentiated by
device/sub-devices numbers
=> For me, this patch is mandatory to be able to address the ASoC IEC
controls, in case of no fix is implemented to allows index field
update in ASoC.
3-2) Alsa driver patches
- ASoC: core: allow PCM control binding to PCM device
Add relationship between DAIs PCM controls and PCM device.
- ALSA: control: increment index field for duplicated control.
Generic implementation of the patch proposed in HDA driver
(http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tiwai/sound.git/commit/?id=ea9b43add)
- ASoC: sti: use bind_pcm_ctl
implementation of bind_pcm_ctl for sti driver.
In my view, this patchset includes two attempts:
1.to add a framework into ALSA SoC part to relate some control element
sets to PCM devices
2.to allow drivers in ALSA SoC part to add some control element sets
from the same codes according to entries of dtb
To achieve above 2nd attempt, it changes ALSA control core to accept
several control element sets with the same name by assigning proper
indexes to the sets.
Well, since your former messages, you continue using the word, 'general'
or 'generic'. If it were somewhat general, it should satisfy
requirements in whole this subsystem. Actually, there's none of such
requirements outside of ALSA SoC part. For the drivers outside of ALSA
SoC part, design of target sound card is fixed in advance, therefore
programmers can assign control element sets to PCM devices in usual
ways. At least, current infrastructure in ALSA control core can satisfy
the programmers.
Therefore, I think that your attempts includes over-generalization. In
theory, it can bring over-specification easily and it causes code
complication or unmaintained codes.
Focusing on ALSA SoC part, there's a requirement to register control
element sets from the same code, in fact. So I wonder why you don't
start your explanation in an aspect of it. In short, I can't understand
the reason that you adhere to such an inappropriate generalization for
this subsystem.
In this patchset, you adhere to usage of 'index' field. But there's
another way; assigning different identification information to the
control element sets. Let us to start discussion from this point? At
least, Iwai-san said, former driver for Intel High Definition Audio is
necessarily not a good example for a model to c
onsider about this issue and the usage of 'index' is not
well-generalized[1].
Finally, it's better to clear main points of your issue, for practical
and meaningful discussion for better approaches, before starting this
discussion, I think. At least, there's over-generalization,
misunderstandings of design and interfaces, driver-specific historical
reasons and so on.
[1] [RFC 0/4] ALSA controls management using
index/device/sub-devices fields
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2016-November/114430.html
Regards
Takashi Sakamoto
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
