On 6/30/2020 12:25 PM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Hi Sameer
Thank you for explaining detail at off-list mail.
Your issue happen on (C) case, and you are tring to solve it.
It is easy to understand if it was indicated at log area.
I have imagined other system from "multiple CPU/Codec support".
(A) (B)
FE <-> BE
(C) (D)
BE <-> BE
I'm not sure, this is just my guess.
I'm happy if we can support it more easily :)
Right now I am trying re-use simple-card driver as much as possible
and still make it work for flexible sound cards. I will be happy to
discuss and improve the patch wherever necessary. Please help me
understand which part you think looks to be hacky.
But, if it was difficult to keep compatibility on simple-card,
we/you need to have new one.
Patch 17/23 and 18/23 introduce new compatible
'simple-cc-audio-card'. Idea was to use component chaining which
allows connection of FE<->BE and multiple BE<->BE components along the
DAPM path (patch 16/23). Do you think it would be fine?
This seems very complex system for current simple-card.
"concept" of simple-card is simple (but "code" is not so simple...)
Because of it, it doesn't assume flexible connection.
Maybe your patch works for you, but might breaks other systems.
Or, makes code or DT settings more complex/ununderstandable.
Not sure, but my guess.
Yes there are complex use cases, but if we look at the amount of changes
required in simple-card driver that is not too much. Existing binding
for simple-card driver would still work fine for our cases. Yes there
are some deviations and we don't want to break existing users, that is
why a *new* compatible was introduced and specific items can be pushed
under it. Majority of the simple-card driver is getting re-used here. We
just need to make sure it does not affect anyone else.
Using cpu@0 node for BE is the 1st confusable point for me.
Don't we use the same methodology for CODEC<->CODEC link and still
describe the DAI link with 'cpu@0' and 'codec@0'?
Using fe/be instead of cpu/codec is easy to understand.
I guess you are referring to DT binding part. The parsing code
specifically looks for "codec" sub node and thus present conventions had
to be used.
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
