2023-09-27 00:12:31

by Konrad Dybcio

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916/39: Add QDSP6

On 26.09.2023 18:51, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> MSM8916 and MSM8939 do not have a dedicated ADSP. Instead, the audio
> services via APR are also implemented by the modem DSP. Audio can be
> either routed via the modem DSP (necessary for voice call audio etc)
> or directly sent to the LPASS hardware (currently used by DB410c).
> Bypassing QDSP6 audio is only possible with special firmware
> (on DB410c) or when the modem DSP is completely disabled.
>
> Add the typical nodes for QDSP6 audio to msm8916.dtsi and msm8939.dtsi.
> The apr node is disabled by default to avoid changing behavior for
> devices like DB410c that use the bypassed audio path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <[email protected]>
> ---
I'm generally grumpy with regards to multi-soc changes that
have no need to be multi-soc..

Konrad


2023-09-27 05:12:56

by Stephan Gerhold

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916/39: Add QDSP6

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:46:36PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 26.09.2023 18:51, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > MSM8916 and MSM8939 do not have a dedicated ADSP. Instead, the audio
> > services via APR are also implemented by the modem DSP. Audio can be
> > either routed via the modem DSP (necessary for voice call audio etc)
> > or directly sent to the LPASS hardware (currently used by DB410c).
> > Bypassing QDSP6 audio is only possible with special firmware
> > (on DB410c) or when the modem DSP is completely disabled.
> >
> > Add the typical nodes for QDSP6 audio to msm8916.dtsi and msm8939.dtsi.
> > The apr node is disabled by default to avoid changing behavior for
> > devices like DB410c that use the bypassed audio path.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <[email protected]>
> > ---
> I'm generally grumpy with regards to multi-soc changes that
> have no need to be multi-soc..
>

Well it's 100% the same diff so reviewing it separately doesn't really
make sense IMHO. When I do "msm8916/39" patches these are generally the
changes where strictly speaking there is no need to duplicate at all.
It could go into a common include between both. We just haven't found
a good solution/agreement yet how sharing SoC components could work.

Thanks,
Stephan