Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: boards: Add CML_RT1015 m/c driver

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: boards: Add CML_RT1015 m/c driver

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 466 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 12:02:24AM +0800, matsufan@gmail.com wrote:

> +<<<<<<< HEAD
>  obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOF_CML_RT1011_RT5682_MACH) += snd-soc-cml_rt1011_rt5682.o
> +=======
> +obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOF_CML_RT1011_RT5682_MACH) += cml_rt1011_rt5682.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOF_CML_RT1015_RT5682_MACH) += cml_rt1015_rt5682.o
> +>>>>>>> 955c356... CHROMIUM: ASoC: Intel: boards: Add CML_RT1015 m/c driver

There's an unresolved conflict here :/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: boards: Add CML_RT1015 m/c driver

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 10/16/20 11:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 12:02:24AM +0800, matsufan@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> +<<<<<<< HEAD
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOF_CML_RT1011_RT5682_MACH) += snd-soc-cml_rt1011_rt5682.o
>> +=======
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOF_CML_RT1011_RT5682_MACH) += cml_rt1011_rt5682.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOF_CML_RT1015_RT5682_MACH) += cml_rt1015_rt5682.o
>> +>>>>>>> 955c356... CHROMIUM: ASoC: Intel: boards: Add CML_RT1015 m/c driver
> 
> There's an unresolved conflict here :/

Was this patch shared on the mailing list? I don't see it in my inbox 
and in the archives?

At any rate, I am not hot on adding yet another machine driver just to 
change an amplifier version. It's really horrible to maintain all of 
these permutations by code duplication.

Adding a variant in a existing machine driver is a much better idea, and 
pretty much all new machine drivers follow this model. You could either 
rename the existing driver as cml_rt101x_rt5682 or use sof_rt5682.

Thanks
-Pierre

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: boards: Add CML_RT1015 m/c driver

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:19:41AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 10/16/20 11:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > There's an unresolved conflict here :/

> Was this patch shared on the mailing list? I don't see it in my inbox and in
> the archives?

I did a reply all - it might've been held for moderation on the list?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

RE: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: boards: Add CML_RT1015 m/c driver

[Lu, Brent]

> 
> Was this patch shared on the mailing list? I don't see it in my inbox and in the
> archives?
> 
> At any rate, I am not hot on adding yet another machine driver just to change
> an amplifier version. It's really horrible to maintain all of these permutations
> by code duplication.
> 
> Adding a variant in a existing machine driver is a much better idea, and pretty
> much all new machine drivers follow this model. You could either rename the
> existing driver as cml_rt101x_rt5682 or use sof_rt5682.
> 
> Thanks
> -Pierre

+ Jimmy from google

Hi Jimmy,
Any opinion about CML machine drivers for Chromebooks?

We may keep the separated driver in CHROMIUM or modify existing Helios driver
to adopt the architecture in sof_rt5682 to work with multiple amps.


Regards,
Brent