[alsa-devel] Question about your DSP topic branch

Patrick Lai plai at codeaurora.org
Thu Jan 27 22:51:58 CET 2011

On 1/26/2011 3:20 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:22:41PM -0800, Patrick Lai wrote:
>> On 1/25/2011 3:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Yes, that'd be kind of nice but given how tiny these noop drivers are
>>> and the fact that they do all need to specify their capabilites it's not
>>> clear that there's much advantage from combining them into a single
>>> driver - the boiler plate is so small and simple.
>> Do we consider the case that codec driver is not required such as
>> virtual sink or sink is configured outside of ALSA driver? If we
>> create dummy codec driver for each use case, wouldn't
>> sound/soc/codecs end up littered with bunch of noop drivers?
> Yup, but it's not really a big cost - they're all so trivial.

Currently, I already have few dummy codec drivers in mind for the 
project I am working on. I am not worried about the size of these files. 
Beside having tons of dummy codec drivers in the source tree, I am also 
looking at the value and effort to upstream these trivial drivers.
>> Furthermore, couldn't capabilities
>> being passed through platform device?
> Right, but of course you probably end up defining a common set of
> platform data for each device so people don't have to cut'n'paste the
> same thing into all the different board files.

Yes, that would be convenient for others. However, I see the effort to 
create multiple platform devices and paste the capabilities in the board 
file far less than upstreamng no-op drivers and making changes in 
Kconfig and Makefile under sound/soc/codecs.


Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

More information about the Alsa-devel mailing list