I know you are already working for it for Intel
https://github.com/plbossart/sound/commits/fix/codec-legacy-dai
and, it will be conflict to my posted patch style.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10888741/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10888745/
So, I can avoid to posting patch for Intel,
then, you need to update it again for modern style CPU.
Or, I can update Intel by using above macro.
What is your opinion ?
I must admit I didn't look at the new style. With all due respect I am
not sold, it's becoming a lot less intuitive and readable, e.g.:
+SND_SOC_DAI_LINK_CCP(aif1,
+ SND_SOC_DAI_LINK(SDL_CPU("samsung-i2s.0")),
+ SND_SOC_DAI_LINK(SDL_CODEC("wm8994-codec", "wm8994-aif1")),
+ SND_SOC_DAI_LINK(SDL_PLATFORM("samsung-i2s.0")));
+
+SND_SOC_DAI_LINK_CCP(fifo_tx,
+ SND_SOC_DAI_LINK(SDL_CPU("samsung-i2s-sec")),
+ SND_SOC_DAI_LINK(SDL_CODEC("wm8994-codec", "wm8994-aif1")),
+ SND_SOC_DAI_LINK(SDL_PLATFORM("samsung-i2s-sec")));
+
static struct snd_soc_dai_link smdk_dai[] = {
{ /* Primary DAI i/f */
.name = "WM8994 AIF1",
.stream_name = "Pri_Dai",
- .cpu_dai_name = "samsung-i2s.0",
- .codec_dai_name = "wm8994-aif1",
- .platform_name = "samsung-i2s.0",
- .codec_name = "wm8994-codec",
.init = smdk_wm8994_init_paiftx,
.dai_fmt = SND_SOC_DAIFMT_I2S | SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_NF |
SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM,
.ops = &smdk_ops,
+ SND_SOC_LINK_CCP(aif1),
is this really the new direction?
Even the acronyms are not simple, it took me 15mn to figure out that CCP
stood for CPU/Codec/Platform and I couldn't figure out what SDL means.
The multiple repetitions of SND_SOC_DAI_LINK is also misleading, it's
just a property of the *same* dailink that you handle.
I am even more nervous since we have a need to explicitly some cpu and
codec dai names depending on quirks, with the additional abstraction
it'll become plain unreadable - or we need new helpers.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
