Re: [PATCH RFC 10/13] ASoC: kirkwood-t5325: add DAPM links between codec and cpu DAI

[Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:49:49PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:25:55AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 
> > > Mark is adamant that the Kirkwood-i2s with SPDIF support _will_ use DPCM
> > > and refuses to take patches which don't.
> > 
> > No, that's for simultaneous use of I2S and S/PDIF.  Using one or the
> > other shouldn't be a problem, that's just a single DAI and a single PCM
> > which has always been supported.
> > 
> > > So, until DPCM gets fixed, I can't proceed with getting SPDIF for kirkwood
> > > into mainline.
> > 
> > I would suggest getting the either/or support merged first.
> 
> Sorry, I don't know how to do that.

Let's be a little more clear about that: I don't know how to do that
because that's the approach taken by _these_ very patches which you've
rejected for "abusing the ASoC core".  That's why I'm asking Liam
directly to effectively overrule you, because I believe your position
to be wrong on these patches, and based on an incorrect understanding
about DPCM - as I've already evidenced earlier in this thread by
illustrating that the DAPM setup I create in the CPU DAI part of these
patches is exactly the same as Liam creates in his Haswell driver.

Moreover, I believe these patches to be _almost_ correct to what Liam
suggests is required, so there's really no reason not to take them.
(The only thing difference is that the AIF widgets should be registered
against the CPU DAI DAPM context when DPCM becomes usable.)

Since you continue to refuse to take the patches, but haven't given any
further reasons why, and I've shown your original objections to be
provably false, you leave me no other options but to try and bypass
you, especially when you have plainly stated that you don't care about
Kirkwood stuff.