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 <pierre-louis.boss...@linux.intel.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 5:48 PM
I'm not seeing any new text in here? > To: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>; RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO > <vishnuvardhanrao.ravulap...@amd.com> > Cc: moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM... > <alsa-de...@alsa-project.org>; Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>; Liam Girdwood > <lgirdw...@gmail.com>; open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; YueHaibing > <yuehaib...@huawei.com>; Takashi Iwai <ti...@suse.com>; Deucher, Alexander > <alexander.deuc...@amd.com>; Mukunda, Vijendar <vijendar.muku...@amd.com>; > Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balle...@collabora.com>; Agrawal, Akshu > <akshu.agra...@amd.com> > 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
