On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0200, Martin Povišer wrote:
> > On 25. 4. 2022, at 14:25, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If you register two separate DAIs (well, links) with the API without
> > doing anything else the API will just expose them to userspace as two
> > separate things with no indication that they're related.
> Sure, but what I am addressing here is a single DAI link with multiple
> CPU DAIs, invoked in DT like this:
> dai-link@0 {
> link-name = "Speakers";
> mclk-fs = <256>;
>
> cpu {
> sound-dai = <&mca 0>, <&mca 1>;
> };
> codec {
> sound-dai = <&speaker_left_woof1>,
> <&speaker_right_woof1>,
> <&speaker_left_tweet>,
> <&speaker_right_tweet>,
> <&speaker_left_woof2>,
> <&speaker_right_woof2>;
> };
> };
You could parse this into two separate links for the benefit of the
framewokr if you're using a custom machine driver (which I suspect you
probably have to).
> >> What about this interim solution: In case of N-to-M links we put in
> >> the most restrictive condition for checking capture/playback stream
> >> validity: we check all of the CPU DAIs. Whatever ends up being the
> >> proper solution later can only be less restrictive than this.
> > That's not the issue here?
> Well to me it looks like it is. Because if I invoke the DAI link like
> I quoted above, and the platform driver supports it, the playback/capture
> stream validity check is the only place it breaks down. Notwithstanding
> this may be the wrong API as you wrote.
I am surprised that doesn't otherwise explode TBH - at the very least
I'd expect it to show two PCMs to userspace which if I'm understanding
your description correctly isn't really what's going on.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
