Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759247AbYFEPOs (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:14:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753728AbYFEPOk (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:14:40 -0400 Received: from mail.pager.net ([209.253.16.26]:34369 "EHLO barracuda.pager.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753496AbYFEPOk (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:14:40 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 857 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:14:39 EDT X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1212678020-026a00640000-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-URL: http://192.168.1.240:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi From: Geoffrey Wossum Organization: Long Range Systems To: Haavard Skinnemoen X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: AT32 ASoC Driver Patches on alsa-devel Subject: Re: AT32 ASoC Driver Patches on alsa-devel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:00:56 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: kernel@avr32linux.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200806050851.47319.geoffrey@pager.net> <20080605162206.0a34a54e@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com> In-Reply-To: <20080605162206.0a34a54e@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806051000.56969.geoffrey@pager.net> X-Barracuda-Connect: LRS-CiscoRouter[192.168.1.1] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1212678020 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at pager.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3444 Lines: 79 On Thursday 05 June 2008 09:22:06 am Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > Geoffrey Wossum wrote: > > For anyone that's interested, there's patches to add ALSA System-on-Chip > > sound platform drivers for the AVR32 being discussed on the alsa-devel > > mailing list right now. > > Hmm. For something that depends on a metric shitload of middle layers, > it is surprisingly large... Partly because the code attempts to handle every contingency an application might throw at (different sample rates, formats, clocking options, etc.). Partly because it also has some concern for power management. > I have to admit I don't understand the current sound situation at all. > With this driver, we now have: To paraphrase Andy Tanenbaum, the great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from. > * An OSS driver for the AP7000 Audio Bitstream DAC OSS > * A "regular" ALSA driver for the AC97C (not based on ASoC) I don't have an AC97 CODEC. > * An i2s driver for the AT73C213 chip using the SSC controller and SPI Strongly coupled to the AT73C213, not the chip I'm using, although it did provide a good example of working code. This is where I figured out I needed to use big endian. > * Some sort of "AT32 PCM" layer which apparently can only be used > with the SSC controller This IS sort of confusing. It's really more of a generic SSC / PDC driver than a "PCM layer". Its existence is largely an artifact of it being in the AT91 ASoC platform code, which I "ported" to get the AT32 platform code. Its existence in the AT91 platform driver is an artifact of the AT91 driver being based on the PXA platform driver. In other words, I'm not really the one to explain the design rationale behind it. > * The above two being essentially identical to similar drivers for > AT91 Yes, I didn't particularly like making the AT32 code almost exactly like the AT91 code, and most of the differences are due to changes in some kernel APIs rather than the peripherals really being different (BTW, the changes in the AT32 are an improvement!). But I needed an AT32 layer quickly, and I don't have any AT91 hardware, so I couldn't really go mucking about in the AT91 code since I wouldn't be able to test it. I don't feel especially bad, though, since at91_mci.c and atmel-mci.c commit essentially the same sin. > Can someone please help me out here? In particular, what is ASoC and > why should I want to use it? Number 1 reason (for me): The only driver for my CODEC (WM8510) was an ASoC driver. Using sound system other than ASoC would require porting / rewriting this driver. Since an AT91 ASoC platform driver already existed, and would be virtually the same as the AT32 platform driver, this was the best choice for getting sound quickly. So this essentially boils down to code reuse. And if we switch CODEC's for some reason, it's less work. Another highly compelling reason: power consumption. Only powers up parts of the audio pathway that are currently needed. For more reasons: http://alsa-project.org/main/index.php/ASoC Legal notice: I received no compensation for this endosement :) --- Geoffrey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/