From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
Cc: tiwai@suse.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
yc.hung@mediatek.com, daniel.baluta@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code from machine driver
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:38:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YYVQC7KLZx8oxdXT@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4360ea17c3045759e85ee13fa9c001afe73c93c.camel@mediatek.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I don't follow why the DSP support requires a new driver? Shouldn't
> > all
> > systems with the DSP present be using it?
> We need to keep the solution without DSP, so we can replace DSP
> solution with non-DSP when it's required. But when we introduce SOF for
> DSP control, there will be more routes in machine driver and device
> tree usage is different from the original. So it's hard to share the
> same driver for these two solutions.
We shouldn't be requiring people to load completely different drivers
based on software configuration, what if a system wants to bypass the
DSP in some but not all configurations? Can we not just have controls
allowing users to route round the DSP where appropriate?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
Cc: tiwai@suse.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
yc.hung@mediatek.com, daniel.baluta@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code from machine driver
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:38:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YYVQC7KLZx8oxdXT@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4360ea17c3045759e85ee13fa9c001afe73c93c.camel@mediatek.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I don't follow why the DSP support requires a new driver? Shouldn't
> > all
> > systems with the DSP present be using it?
> We need to keep the solution without DSP, so we can replace DSP
> solution with non-DSP when it's required. But when we introduce SOF for
> DSP control, there will be more routes in machine driver and device
> tree usage is different from the original. So it's hard to share the
> same driver for these two solutions.
We shouldn't be requiring people to load completely different drivers
based on software configuration, what if a system wants to bypass the
DSP in some but not all configurations? Can we not just have controls
allowing users to route round the DSP where appropriate?
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
tiwai@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, yc.hung@mediatek.com,
matthias.bgg@gmail.com, daniel.baluta@nxp.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code from machine driver
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:38:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YYVQC7KLZx8oxdXT@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4360ea17c3045759e85ee13fa9c001afe73c93c.camel@mediatek.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I don't follow why the DSP support requires a new driver? Shouldn't
> > all
> > systems with the DSP present be using it?
> We need to keep the solution without DSP, so we can replace DSP
> solution with non-DSP when it's required. But when we introduce SOF for
> DSP control, there will be more routes in machine driver and device
> tree usage is different from the original. So it's hard to share the
> same driver for these two solutions.
We shouldn't be requiring people to load completely different drivers
based on software configuration, what if a system wants to bypass the
DSP in some but not all configurations? Can we not just have controls
allowing users to route round the DSP where appropriate?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
Cc: tiwai@suse.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
yc.hung@mediatek.com, daniel.baluta@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code from machine driver
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:38:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YYVQC7KLZx8oxdXT@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4360ea17c3045759e85ee13fa9c001afe73c93c.camel@mediatek.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I don't follow why the DSP support requires a new driver? Shouldn't
> > all
> > systems with the DSP present be using it?
> We need to keep the solution without DSP, so we can replace DSP
> solution with non-DSP when it's required. But when we introduce SOF for
> DSP control, there will be more routes in machine driver and device
> tree usage is different from the original. So it's hard to share the
> same driver for these two solutions.
We shouldn't be requiring people to load completely different drivers
based on software configuration, what if a system wants to bypass the
DSP in some but not all configurations? Can we not just have controls
allowing users to route round the DSP where appropriate?
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-05 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-03 10:00 [PATCH 0/4] ASoC: mediatek: Update MT8195 machine driver Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` [PATCH 1/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: add headset codec rt5682s support Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: mediatek: mt8195: add model property Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-12 20:10 ` Rob Herring
2021-11-12 20:10 ` Rob Herring
2021-11-12 20:10 ` Rob Herring
2021-11-12 20:10 ` Rob Herring
2021-11-03 10:00 ` [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code from machine driver Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-04 15:39 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-04 15:39 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-04 15:39 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-04 15:39 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-05 4:11 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-05 4:11 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-05 4:11 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-05 4:11 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-05 15:38 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-11-05 15:38 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-05 15:38 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-05 15:38 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-05 16:16 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-11-05 16:16 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-11-05 16:16 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-11-05 16:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-05 16:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-05 16:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-05 16:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-08 9:40 ` YC Hung
2021-11-08 9:40 ` YC Hung
2021-11-08 9:40 ` YC Hung
2021-11-08 9:40 ` YC Hung
2021-11-16 9:33 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-16 9:33 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-16 9:33 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-16 9:33 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-16 14:59 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-16 14:59 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-16 14:59 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-16 14:59 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-03 10:00 ` [PATCH 4/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: add machine driver for MT8195 SOF support Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
2021-11-03 10:00 ` Trevor Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YYVQC7KLZx8oxdXT@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=daniel.baluta@nxp.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=tiwai@suse.com \
--cc=trevor.wu@mediatek.com \
--cc=yc.hung@mediatek.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.