[alsa-devel] [RFC v2 00/11] Enable HDA Codec support on Intel Platforms (Series2)

[Ughreja, Rakesh A]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Takashi Iwai [mailto:tiwai at suse.de]
>Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 4:53 PM
>To: Ughreja, Rakesh A <rakesh.a.ughreja at intel.com>
>Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; broonie at kernel.org;
>liam.r.girdwood at linux.intel.com; pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com; Koul, Vinod
><vinod.koul at intel.com>; Patches Audio <patches.audio at intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/11] Enable HDA Codec support on Intel Platforms
>(Series2)
>
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:52:52 +0100,
>Rakesh Ughreja wrote:
>>
>> Many Intel platforms (SKL, KBL) etc. in the market supports enhanced
>> audio capabilities which also includes DSP processing. This patch carry
>> forwards the works that is done in the previous series to enable HD Audio
>> codecs on such platforms.
>>
>> This patch series adds ASoC HDA codec driver for Intel platforms. It is
>> written by reusing the legacy HDA ALSA codec driver. Intention is to
>> maximize the reuse and minimize the changes in the legacy HDA codec driver.
>>
>> I would like to receive feedback before proceeding further on this
>> direction.
>>
>> INFO:
>> - This series is tested on KBL based product (Dell XPS 13).
>> - Basic playback is working with headset and speakers.
>> - HDMI playback is working.
>> - Capture operation is not tested.
>> - More platforms and use cases coverage can be added once we have basic
>>   agreement in terms of the overall approach.
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Using Topology framework to create DAIs and DAI Links
>> - Moved most commonly used functions into a separate file for machine driver
>> - Implemented separate Realtek ASoC HDA Driver driver for Realtek HDA
>codecs.
>>   It is just a driver registration wrapper which reuses the legacy HDA codec
>>   driver. This allows the removes the limitation that was present in v1.
>> - Implemented the review feedback.
>
>Looking through the patchset quickly, I have a mixed feeling with it.
>I see you're trying to get it working with minimal changes, which is

Thanks once again for the quick feedback.

>good in one side.  OTOH, it is unacceptably messy, in special, because
>the device creation and registration phases are mixed up.

I am not sure if I understand this fully. "Device creation and registration
phases are mixed up". If you can explain bit more, I can try to improve
it.

>
>And exporting each codec table doesn't look nice.  We need to find a
>better way...

Do you think accessing the codec table via some EXPORT function
is a better way ?

>
>
>thanks,
>
>Takashi