On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 01:19:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:54:29AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 06:13:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:46:05PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > I was thinking about this as well a while back, wont it make sense to > > > > let > > > > machine driver expose meaningful controls for this. Just like we have > > > > fixup > > > > for back-ends, we can add fixups for codec-codec links and let machine > > > > tell > > > > you the parameters to configure. > > > > This is supposed to be pretty much the same thing (not looked at the > > > patch yet) - the machine driver passes in a list of possible settings > > > and then a control gets generated allowing the user to pick one. > > > Yes but this is bit different from the current way of using fixups for BEs. > > So it would be bit incosistent. For pcms it would be only fixups and for > > loops it would be machine controls > > That doesn't mean it's the best way to go in the end though - long term > I expect to see us move away from that to something more data driven and > DAPM integrated. Requiring drivers to open code things rather than > factoring out the code doesn't seem like the right way forwards. Okay if that is the direction then this sound good to me.
Only one last nitpick on how do we set different format value apart from sample rate, bits etc here. We have devices talking on same port and each one is different format(one use i2s, one uses tdm ...), so how do we handle that part? Thanks -- ~Vinod
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
