Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751533AbdF1IjR (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 04:39:17 -0400 Received: from smtp.csie.ntu.edu.tw ([140.112.30.61]:57388 "EHLO smtp.csie.ntu.edu.tw" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751261AbdF1IjN (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 04:39:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170628102520.29c50592@scratchpost.org> References: <20170624062419.23778-1-dannym@scratchpost.org> <20170624062419.23778-6-dannym@scratchpost.org> <20170626192100.h5o366tawcnkqosx@flea.lan> <20170628102520.29c50592@scratchpost.org> From: Chen-Yu Tsai Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:38:48 +0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v13 05/14] ASoC: sun4i-codec: Merge sun4i_codec_left_mixer_controls and sun4i_codec_right_mixer_controls into sun4i_codec_mixer_controls. To: Danny Milosavljevic Cc: Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Linux-ALSA , linux-arm-kernel , linux-kernel , linux-sunxi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3609 Lines: 76 On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > Hi, > >> > > -static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_left_mixer_controls[] = { >> > > - SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Left DAC Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, >> > > - SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACLMIXS, 1, 0), >> > > -}; >> > > - >> > > -static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_right_mixer_controls[] = { >> > > - SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Right DAC Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, >> > > +static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_mixer_controls[] = { >> > > + SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("DAC Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, >> > > + SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACLMIXS, >> > > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RDACRMIXS, 1, 0), >> > >> > This changes the mixer control names exposed to userspace. While I think >> > consolidating mixer controls is nice, giving the user a less cluttered >> > view, I'm not sure about the changing a possible userspace ABI. >> > >> > Maxime, ALSA and ASoC people, any comments about this? > >>Yeah, breaking userspace is definitely not ok. > > Okay. I can restore DAC Playback Switch as two different controls with the same > names as before. > > Is the mixer itself (SND_SOC_DAPM_MIXER) - not talking about its controls - > exposed to userspace? Other than debugfs, no it is not. > Because if not, I can still merge the left mixer and right mixer and just fix up > the control names for DAC Playback Switch to be the same as before, something > like this: > > static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_mixer_controls[] = { > SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Left Mixer Left DAC Playback Switch", // !!! > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACLMIXS, 1, 0), > SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Right Mixer Right DAC Playback Switch", // !!! > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RDACRMIXS, 1, 0), > SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Right Mixer Left DAC Playback Switch", > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACRMIXS, 1, 0), > SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("Line Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LLNS, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RLNS, 1, 0), > SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("FM Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LFMS, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RFMS, 1, 0), > SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("Mic1 Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC1LS, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC1RS, 1, 0), > SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("Mic2 Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC2LS, > SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC2RS, 1, 0), > }; > > static const struct snd_soc_dapm_widget sun4i_codec_codec_dapm_widgets[] = { > ... > SND_SOC_DAPM_MIXER("Left Mixer", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, > sun4i_codec_mixer_controls, > ARRAY_SIZE(sun4i_codec_mixer_controls)), // !!! > SND_SOC_DAPM_MIXER("Right Mixer", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, > sun4i_codec_mixer_controls, > ARRAY_SIZE(sun4i_codec_mixer_controls)), // !!! > }; > > Would this be a good way? I think that would work. We would need to verify that the DAPM routing graph for the existing single channel controls work as intended though. ChenYu