Hi Mark,

I am YC Hung from Mediatek. Let me show our block diagram as the link
below for the sound card which support SOF.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/62316/132476344-923dfe3a-5305-43e5-9fc8-c63d9ab2c58f.png
In this sound card, there are two components , one is SOF based
component and another is non-SOF based component(called Normal in the
block).
We want to reuse some BEs of Normal which can control Mediatek Audio
Front End hardware power, clock , and DAI module and still keep some
FEs(e.g. DPTX) then we can use it on the same sound card.
Therefore, we use late_probe callback function
"mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_card_late_probe" to add route path from
SOF widget to non-SOF BEs.
For two patches https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3217 and 
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/3236, we want to keep FEs
of non-SOF components and can reuse them. Please let me know if I am
not clear enough.Thanks.

On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 16:41 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 11:16:05AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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

So it's actually supposed to end up as two different cards which
can't
possibly be interlinked?  That doesn't seem to add up entirely given
that there's stuff being moved out of the current card, and I thought
these systems had a fairly comprehensive audio muxing capability.
Trevor, could you be a bit more specific about what's actually going
on
here physically please?

quoted

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.

Yes, if the interface can optionally be completely hidden by the DSP
that's adding another layer of complication.
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

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