On 11/5/21 10:38 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

I don't follow why the DSP support requires a new driver?  Shouldn't
all
systems with the DSP present be using it?

quoted

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?

It was my understanding the card relies on separate components

- a SOF-based component to provide support for DSP-managed interfaces
- a 'non-SOF' component for 'regular' interfaces not handled by the DSP.

this was the basis for the changes discussed in
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3217 and
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3236

But indeed if the same interface can be managed by the DSP or not,
depending on software choices it's a different problem altogether.

We've looked into this recently, if the choice to involve the DSP or not
is at the interface level, it might be better to have both components
expose different DAIs for the same interface, with some sort of run-time
mutual exclusion, so that all possible/allowed permutations are allowed.

_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek