From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC732C4338F for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 02:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alsa0.perex.cz (alsa0.perex.cz [77.48.224.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFAC160E78 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 02:20:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org EFAC160E78 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=renesas.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alsa-project.org Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (alsa1.perex.cz [207.180.221.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC7EE1703; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:19:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa0.perex.cz BC7EE1703 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alsa-project.org; s=default; t=1627266020; bh=QauBmABH7DutnUcoGsC9IUM9GMgCIRfTovL6yaEK5JQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=Av2Qks+XRRAajqfzZB90wICxXgQN2MKFd0gPMxKlatdQWlIEEH8VPfl8knRo82Oe6 0JEcQw2WlDHnO5IRG55jWd60+GZGv0bEZCrZG++q+X/hLvVfviyyYCArlm4NlyCptI JE4xPnRmWUTcDvz3pqcou9TiGM39tNvBv2WZspE0= Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EA1F80130; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:19:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) id D034FF8025A; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:19:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relmlie5.idc.renesas.com (relmlor1.renesas.com [210.160.252.171]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACD3F80130 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 04:19:23 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa1.perex.cz 3ACD3F80130 Date: 26 Jul 2021 11:19:20 +0900 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,269,1620658800"; d="scan'208";a="88727768" Received: from unknown (HELO relmlir5.idc.renesas.com) ([10.200.68.151]) by relmlie5.idc.renesas.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2021 11:19:20 +0900 Received: from mercury.renesas.com (unknown [10.166.252.133]) by relmlir5.idc.renesas.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55CF4009BCA; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 11:19:20 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <87fsw124wn.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> From: Kuninori Morimoto To: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/14] ASoC: audio-graph-card2: add Yaml Document In-Reply-To: <20210721115433.GB4259@sirena.org.uk> References: <87a6mhwyqn.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87wnplvk2a.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87lf60v9xk.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <20210721115433.GB4259@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Linux-ALSA X-BeenThere: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Alsa-devel mailing list for ALSA developers - http://www.alsa-project.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" Hi Mark Thank you for clearing the topics. I think I could understand Rob and your expectation. > It's more about making sure that new users that currently use > simple-card are using audio-graph-card instead - we need to keep > simple-card around for existing users (or at least the binding but > probably it's more effort than it's worth to merge the binding parsing > code elsewhere) but we should be avoiding adding new users of it. I've > been pushing people to use audio-graph-card for a while, TBH we should > probably just go ahead and flag simple-card as deprecated in the binding > now since I don't think there's any reason anyone is forced to use it at > this point. (snip) > > > Why do we need these changes? I'm not wild about a new generic binding > > > replacing an existing one which only has 2 or 3 users IIRC. Plus > > > there's already the Renesas variant. (On the flip side, only a few > > > users, easier to deprecate the old binding.) > > > Sorry I don't understand > > - Who is "2 or 3 users" ? > > Just that there's not that many users of the existing audio-graph-card > (though it's a bit more than 2 or 3 and it's newer stuff rather than > old). (snip) > I think what Rob is looking for here is a more detailed description of > what the problems are with the existing binding that require a new > binding - what's driving these big changes? TBH this is part of why > I've been holding off on review, I need to get my head round why we > can't fix the existing binding in place. OK, let's cleanup the problem. O : supported - : not supported x : Annotated simple-card O: Normal connection -: DPCM -: Multi CPU/Codec -: Codec2Codec audio-graph-card (A) O: Normal connection (B) x: DPCM -: Multi CPU/Codec -: Codec2Codec x: Tegra uses is as customize audio-graph-card audio-graph-card2 O: Normal connection O: DPCM O: Multi CPU/Codec O: Codec2Codec We need to keep simple-card, I think there is no discussion is needed here. About audio-graph-card vs audio-graph-card2, I think keeping (A) only on audio-graph-card2 is not super difficult (But some message will be indicated. see below). Supporting (B) on audio-graph-card2 is difficult. I'm not sure detail, but we can do like this ? step 1) - add audio-graph-card2 which have (A) compatibility. - indicate "audio-graph-card will be deprecated" on audio-graph-card step 2) - Tegra switch to use audio-graph-card2 - confirm that all existing audio-graph-card user have no problem on audio-graph-card2 too. step 3) - remove audio-graph-card My concerns are... - I'm not sure how DT is strict. If we removed audio-graph-card, but user uses old Tegra DT on it... We can't remove audio-graph-card forever if DT was super strict (?). - The naming of audio-graph-card vs audio-graph-card2 driver file. because audio-graph-card will be removed later. - audio-graph-card2 can keep (A) compatible, but some features are not recommended. Existing user will get such message. And because of this compatibility, audio-graph-card2 can't remove this "un-recommended" feature. Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto