On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 09:05:24PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 26.09.2023 20:54, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:46:36PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> On 26.09.2023 18:51, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > >>> MSM8916 and MSM8939 do not have a dedicated ADSP. Instead, the audio > >>> services via APR are also implemented by the modem DSP. Audio can be > >>> either routed via the modem DSP (necessary for voice call audio etc) > >>> or directly sent to the LPASS hardware (currently used by DB410c). > >>> Bypassing QDSP6 audio is only possible with special firmware > >>> (on DB410c) or when the modem DSP is completely disabled. > >>> > >>> Add the typical nodes for QDSP6 audio to msm8916.dtsi and msm8939.dtsi. > >>> The apr node is disabled by default to avoid changing behavior for > >>> devices like DB410c that use the bypassed audio path. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >> I'm generally grumpy with regards to multi-soc changes that > >> have no need to be multi-soc.. > >> > > > > Well it's 100% the same diff so reviewing it separately doesn't really > > make sense IMHO. When I do "msm8916/39" patches these are generally the > > changes where strictly speaking there is no need to duplicate at all. > > It could go into a common include between both. We just haven't found > > a good solution/agreement yet how sharing SoC components could work. > My bottom line is that, somebody trying to track down an issue on > one may need to unnecessarily resolve 2 merge conflicts when reverting :/ > I mean you could easily discard the changes in the other .dtsi. Probably a single shell command if one knows enough "Git-fu". Stephan
