Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:57:42 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, tiwai@suse.de,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com, hui.wang@canonical.com,
        broonie@kernel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org,
        jank@cadence.com, mengdong.lin@intel.com, sanyog.r.kale@intel.com,
        rander.wang@linux.intel.com, bard.liao@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] soundwire: bus: update multi-link definition with
 hw sync details
Message-ID: <20200828072742.GL2639@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20200818024120.20721-1-yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>
 <20200818024120.20721-6-yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>
 <20200826094420.GA2639@vkoul-mobl>
 <d534afc3-3c38-275e-2f62-0432ffd91a36@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d534afc3-3c38-275e-2f62-0432ffd91a36@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 26-08-20, 09:09, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
> 
> > > + * @hw_sync_min_links: Number of links used by a stream above which
> > > + * hardware-based synchronization is required. This value is only
> > > + * meaningful if multi_link is set. If set to 1, hardware-based
> > > + * synchronization will be used even if a stream only uses a single
> > > + * SoundWire segment.
> > 
> > Soundwire spec does not say anything about multi-link so this is left to
> > implementer. Assuming that value of 1 would mean hw based sync will
> > be used even for single stream does not make sense in generic terms.
> > Maybe yes for Intel but may not be true for everyone?
> 
> hw-based sync is required for Intel even for single stream. It's been part
> of the recommended programming flows since the beginning but ignored so far.
> 
> That said, this value is set by each master implementation, no one forces
> non-Intel users to implement an Intel-specific requirement.
> 
> > We already use m_rt_count in code for this, so the question is why is
> > that not sufficient?
> 
> Because as you rightly said above, Intel requires the hw_sync to be used
> even for single stream, but we didn't want others to be forced to use the
> hw-sync for single stream. the m_rt_count is not sufficient for Intel.
> 
> I think we are in agreement on not forcing everyone to follow what is
> required by Intel, and that's precisely why we added this setting. If you
> set it to two you would only use hw_sync when two masters are used.

Okay, it would be better if we move it to intel driver, but I see it may
not be trivial, so lets go with this approach.

-- 
~Vinod