On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:24:42PM +0000, RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO wrote: > [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 5:48 PM
I'm not seeing any new text in here? > To: Mark Brown <[email protected]>; RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO > <[email protected]> > Cc: moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM... > <[email protected]>; Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>; Liam Girdwood > <[email protected]>; open list <[email protected]>; YueHaibing > <[email protected]>; Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>; Deucher, Alexander > <[email protected]>; Mukunda, Vijendar <[email protected]>; > Enric Balletbo i Serra <[email protected]>; Agrawal, Akshu > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ASoC: amd: SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C does not build rt5682 > > > > On 7/28/20 7:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 06:59:50AM +0000, RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO > > wrote: > > > >> So Actually for rt5682 codec Now in 5.8 there are three flags : > >> SND_SOC_RT5682 > >> SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C > >> SND_SOC_RT5682_SDW > > > >> But till 5.7.8 we have > >> SND_SOC_RT5682 > >> SND_SOC_RT5682_SDW > > > >> So in our design we were using SND_SOC_RT5682 which build > >> snd_soc_rt5682.ko Creates the respective codec_dais as defined in > >> that .ko > > > >> If we use SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C we get snd_soc_rt5682_I2c.ko , it is not > >> creating the expected codec_dai links. > > > > Could you be more specific about the way in which "it is not creating > > the expected codec_dai links" please? What are you expecting to > > happen and what happens instead? Do you see any error messages for example? > > > >> As there are three flags defined in codecs, I expect that previous > >> one which we were using(SND_SOC_RT5682) is not a wrong flag and I > >> expect to use > >> SND_SOC_RT5682 as it is still available. > > > > Given that the core module does not register with any bus it is > > difficult to see how that could possibly work - the core module > > doesn't contain a driver at all. Have you tested this change? > > I share Mark's point. Have you tested this change on top of Mark's tree, or > only on top of the stable kernel? > Ok. I will drop that patch and send the other series. > > Thanks, >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
