Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] ASoC: Intel: Catpt - Lynx and Wildcat point

[Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 20:11 +0200, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> On 2020-08-13 6:00 PM, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-08-12 at 22:57 +0200, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> > > Implement support for Lynxpoint and Wildcat Point AudioDSP. Catpt
> > > 
> > > solution deprecates existing sound/soc/intel/haswell which is
> > > removed
> > > in
> > > 
> > > the following series. This cover-letter is followed by
> > > 'Developer's
> > > deep
> > > 
> > > dive' message schedding light on catpt's key concepts and areas
> > > 
> > > addressed.
> > 
> > Whilst I applaud removing the old driver I do NOT support adding
> > yet
> > *another* Intel audio DSP driver. Our goal is to remove DSP drivers
> > and
> > unify under one codebase (and this was discussed in Lyon last year
> > at
> > the audio Miniconf).
> > 
> > Please take all these good improvements and add them into the SOF
> > driver.
> > 
> > Please also remember that we are adding an IPC abstraction layer
> > into
> > the SOF driver so it can cope with multiple IPC versions. You are
> > most
> > welcome to help in this effort.
> > 
> Presented catpt is created as a solution to existing problems
> reported 
> by clients and users for WPT platforms. It is not "yet another" DSP 
> driver but an update to an existing one - due to high range of
> problems 
> found when testing it, catpt came as a lower-cost solution and
> /haswell/ 
> is being removed soon after. So, the status quo is maintained -
> single 
> driver for LPT/WPT architecture.

Its a new driver. Fix the old driver or (preferred) fix the SOF driver
so we can remove the haswell driver and have one less DSP driver to
maintain.

> 
> Please don't use 'our goal' term, it's misplaced: it was agreed on 
> several occasions that older DSP platforms remain with closed
> firmware 
> and are to be supported with existing DSP drivers.

I'm not suggesting using SOF FW, but using the existing FW with the IPC
abstraction.

> SOF FW does not support BDW and instead is tasked with support of
> newer 
> platforms. Neither SOF FW team nor Chrome support team agreed with
> WPT 
> being moved out of closed firmware. Please, speak with management
> first 
> before writing statements saying otherwise.

To be clear - I'm saying fix the SOF driver to use the old FW (not the
SOF FW). You know that we need IPC abstraction here (and for other
platforms)

> 
> I don't see your input for any of the patches. Internal heads-up has 
> been given. No review for either internal or upstream patchsets. 
> Afterall, you were the author of original /haswell/ and your input
> could 
> have proved important in speeding the progress and yielding even
> better 
> results to our clients.
> 

Please don't mistake silence for my approval. I knew that updates were
forthcoming but not a new driver.

> As you've given no technical points for denying LPT/WPT improvements
> and 
> your statement disagrees with management's decision, message shall
> be 
> discarded and ignored for the rest of the upstream process. Further 
> discussion will be taken off this list.
> 
> Mark, Takashi and others,
> I'm sorry for this inconvenience, such actions do not represent One 
> Intel and Truth & Transparency which Intel is committed to stand by.
> 

Seriously ? It's really simple for anyone to understand that
introducing a new driver introduces new bugs. It's also very well
understood that fixing or extending existing drivers is always the best
path forwards over adding another new immature driver.

I hope you understand that long term **convergence** is key for
quality, maintainability and reduced effort, if not, I'm happy have a
call.

Thanks

Liam