Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <f8206ecf-7215-1f85-02ef-7d4f57a7898f@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:12:41 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] soundwire: Provide build stubs for common functions
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, patches@opensource.cirrus.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vkoul@kernel.org,
        sanyog.r.kale@intel.com, yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com
References: <20221114102956.914468-1-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <20221114102956.914468-3-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <90b01c76-fc65-a57f-9247-fae78241342c@linux.intel.com>
 <20221115110345.GM10437@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
 <730128a9-46ce-02b2-f88d-c9982fff2e69@opensource.cirrus.com>
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <730128a9-46ce-02b2-f88d-c9982fff2e69@opensource.cirrus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/15/22 05:41, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> On 15/11/2022 11:03, Charles Keepax wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:13:07AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/14/22 04:29, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>>> Provide stub functions when CONFIG_SOUNDWIRE is not set for functions
>>>> that are quite likely to be used from common code on devices supporting
>>>> multiple control buses.
>>>
>>> So far this case has been covered by splitting SoundWire related code
>>> away from, say I2C, and with a clear 'depends on SOUNDWIRE'. This is the
>>> case for rt5682, max98373, etc.
>>>
>>> Is this not good enough?
>>>
>>> I am not against this patch, just wondering if allowing code for
>>> different interfaces to be part of the same file will lead to confusions
>>> with e.g. register offsets or functionality exposed with different
>>> registers.
>>>
>>
>> I guess this is a bit of a grey area this one. Both work, I guess
>> the reason I was leaning this way is that in order to avoid a
>> circular dependency if I put all the soundwire DAI handling into
>> the soundwire code then I have to duplicate the snd_soc_dai_driver
>> structure into both the sdw and i2c specific code (worth noting
>> the I2S DAIs are still usable when the part is sdw to the host). But
>> there are also downsides to this approach in that it will likely have
>> some small impact on driver size when soundwire is not built in.
>>
> 
> I think we should just add the stubs. Other subsystems use stubs to help
> with code that references stuff that might not be available.
> 
> Splitting all the soundwire-specifics out into a separate module works
> for simple chips that are either I2S or soundwire. but can get messy for
> a complex codec. I used the separate file method for CS42L42, but for a
> driver I'm working on I abandoned that and put both DAIs in the core
> code. I didn't notice the missing stubs because my defconfig that was
> intended to omit soundwire apparently has something that is selecting
> it anyway.

It would be good if you could look into this, I don't see any 'select
SOUNDWIRE'.

I agree the premise of the split was that the device is used in one mode
of the other, I am not sure however what the a 'complex codec' would
change. It's likely that we will see a second level within a SoundWire
device to deal with independent 'functions', but I don't quite see how
this would matter.

That said, I don't write codec drivers so I am not going to lay on the
tracks over 2 stubs. We can revisit the sdw.h split as well later.

Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>