On 04/03/18 19:21, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>
> On 04/03/2018 12:15 AM, Kirill Marinushkin wrote:
>> On 04/03/18 02:57, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2018 04:17 PM, Kirill Marinushkin wrote:
>>>> Hello Pierre-Louis,
>>>>
>>>> I explicitly clarified with Takashi: to have this patch series merged, we
>>>> need a
>>>> tag "Reviewed-by" from you.
>>> I am fine with the changes, but maybe while we are at it, we should clarify
>>> what mclk_direction means?
>> That's a good idea to have it solved within this patch series.
>>
>>> __u8 mclk_direction; /* 0 for input, 1 for output */
>>>
>>> This is really awful and might benefit for additional clarity using
>>> codec-centric conventions.
>>>
>> I agree that having a clear naming will avoid confusion for future usage.
>> I see from the code, that this variable is ignored. So we have no technical
>> restriction on how to interpret this.
>> I suggest to do similar to what we did for bclk_master:
>>
>> /* DAI mclk_direction */
>> #define SND_SOC_TPLG_MCLK_CO 0 /* for codec, mclk is output */
>> #define SND_SOC_TPLG_MCLK_CI 1 /* for codec, mclk is input */
>>
>>> We also had a discussion internally and can't figure out why the strings are
>>> different from the fields in the structure, I feel it'd be simpler to align
>>> config and code to avoid issues but keep existing notation for backwards
>>> compatibility, e.g.
>>>
>>> if (strcmp(id, "mclk_freq") == 0) || strcmp(id, "mclk_rate") == 0) {
>>> if (snd_config_get_string(n, &val) < 0)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> hw_cfg->mclk_rate = atoi(val);
>>> continue;
>>> }
>> I agree with this. I will also do the same (keeping backwards-compatibility)
>> for:
>>
>> "format" => "fmt"
>> "bclk" => "bclk_master"
>> "bclk_freq" => "bclk_rate"
>> "bclk_invert" => "invert_bclk"
>> "fsync" => "fsync_master"
>> "fsync_invert" => "invert_fsync"
>> "fsync_freq" => "fsync_rate"
>> "mclk_freq" => "mclk_rate"
>> "mclk" => "mclk_direction"
>> "pm_gate_clocks" => "clock_gated"
>>
>> If you agree with both proposals, I will add patches to this patch series, and
>> re-send as patch v4.
>> Or can we handle it in a better way?
> A v4 is fine with me.
>
> These topology definitions appear in hindsight quite problematic, there are
> missing definitions and capabilities, e.g we have the ability to 'gate the
> clock' but without knowing which clock, and we have no ability to force the
> mclk/bclk/fsync on (be it on demand from a codec driver or on startup as a
> system requirement). And there is no real extension capability with a protocol
> version. The net effect is that people will have to create custom tokens and
> parsing for things that should be common...
>
Yes, definitions which you mentioned really can become a problem.
But, I see from the header that topology files support versioning:
~~~~
#define SND_SOC_TPLG_ABI_VERSION 0x5 /* current version */
~~~~
So, in future such problems can be solved by incrementing the version, if no
backwards capabilities are available.
Before I continue with the patch v4, I want to clarify with you, so that we
avoid the misunderstanding:
* in the existing 4 patches, I will add a tag
"Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
* in the new 2 patches, which we recently discussed, I will add a tag
"Acked-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
Do you agree with that?
Best Regards,
Kirill
> Thanks
> -Pierre
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
