From: <Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com>
To: <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: <perex@perex.cz>, <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
<mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>, <tiwai@suse.com>,
<lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Separate BE DAI HW constraints from FE ones
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:56:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1aff49d4-5691-67cb-3fe7-979d476f1edb@microchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210415161743.GH5514@sirena.org.uk>
On 15.04.2021 19:17, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 02:58:10PM +0000, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>
>> How about using a different API for ASoC only, since that's the place of
>> DPCM. Only drivers that do not involve DSPs would have to to be changed
>> to call the new snd_pcm_hw_rule_add() variant.
>> Another solution would be to have a different snd_soc_pcm_runtime for BE
>> interfaces (with a new hw_constraints member of course). What do you think?
>
> I'm really not convinced we want to continue to pile stuff on top of
> DPCM, it is just fundamentally not up to modelling what modern systems
> are able to do - it's already making things more fragile than they
> should be and more special cases seems like it's going to end up making
> that worse. That said I've not seen the code but...
>
Are there any plans for refactoring DPCM? any ideas ongoing? I also have
some changes for PCM dmaengine, in the same 'style', similar to what I
sent some time ago...
I can adjust to different ideas, if there are any, but, for a start, can
anyone confirm that the problem I am trying to fix is real?
Best regards,
Codrin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-15 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-23 11:43 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Separate BE DAI HW constraints from FE ones Codrin Ciubotariu
2021-03-23 11:43 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] pcm: use substream instead of runtime in snd_pcm_hw_rule_add() Codrin Ciubotariu
2021-03-23 11:43 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] ASoC: soc-pcm: add hw_constraints for BE DAI links Codrin Ciubotariu
2021-03-23 11:43 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] ASoC: soc-pcm: apply BE HW constraint rules Codrin Ciubotariu
2021-03-23 12:15 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Separate BE DAI HW constraints from FE ones Jaroslav Kysela
2021-03-23 14:18 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2021-04-14 14:58 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2021-04-15 16:17 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-15 16:56 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu [this message]
2021-04-15 17:25 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-16 16:03 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2021-04-16 16:31 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-16 16:47 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-04-16 18:55 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-16 19:39 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-04-19 15:07 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-16 17:39 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2021-03-23 19:25 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-24 9:51 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2021-03-24 15:28 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-24 17:12 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
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=1aff49d4-5691-67cb-3fe7-979d476f1edb@microchip.com \
--to=codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=tiwai@suse.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).