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, 5 Nov 2021 15:38:51 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
Cc:     tiwai@suse.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, yc.hung@mediatek.com,
        daniel.baluta@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code
 from machine driver
Message-ID: <YYVQC7KLZx8oxdXT@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20211103100040.11933-1-trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
 <20211103100040.11933-4-trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
 <YYP+l7tMofYoB+aC@sirena.org.uk>
 <b4360ea17c3045759e85ee13fa9c001afe73c93c.camel@mediatek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="t/JfaRmZozyWm9hx"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b4360ea17c3045759e85ee13fa9c001afe73c93c.camel@mediatek.com>
Precedence: bulk


--t/JfaRmZozyWm9hx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

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

> 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?

--t/JfaRmZozyWm9hx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmGFUAoACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9AcIQf/UzpTAAC3VR+zMJZTNX3wEOw/Bi2D9vxmvTBGIwB7G/FlETQmVwaUxECA
azgmnw3jnHqEQO1aNTlkf5su9mzgHkUuQTiNy0AHeQwBcxSmOk5xad6W2mTurLbf
GexsEap8koTYYrIGYaD4DkBef34y5WcEnMmm2DS9lHcpAge/XD9agMmB5QrH3PWR
dcLcfVzHVNGSZbGd6Woxi7xb8Y9wciaFuMyyEcl5YNbXpJO36x/rrxOOA5Okv2rD
McStZ5dJaOvw1juc+ndps1GwyfUSTKFre0NjTSFAVGOelVzIfL9vmIYIqo/pm2/7
weWT+28cmDv+DuB48D7CT5v1QGs11w==
=sW00
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--t/JfaRmZozyWm9hx--