On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Danny Milosavljevic dannym@scratchpost.org wrote:
Hi,
-static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_left_mixer_controls[] = {
SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Left DAC Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL,SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACLMIXS, 1, 0),-};
-static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_right_mixer_controls[] = {
SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Right DAC Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL,+static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_mixer_controls[] = {
SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("DAC Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL,SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACLMIXS, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RDACRMIXS, 1, 0),This changes the mixer control names exposed to userspace. While I think consolidating mixer controls is nice, giving the user a less cluttered view, I'm not sure about the changing a possible userspace ABI.
Maxime, ALSA and ASoC people, any comments about this?
Yeah, breaking userspace is definitely not ok.
Okay. I can restore DAC Playback Switch as two different controls with the same names as before.
Is the mixer itself (SND_SOC_DAPM_MIXER) - not talking about its controls - exposed to userspace?
Other than debugfs, no it is not.
Because if not, I can still merge the left mixer and right mixer and just fix up the control names for DAC Playback Switch to be the same as before, something like this:
static const struct snd_kcontrol_new sun4i_codec_mixer_controls[] = { SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Left Mixer Left DAC Playback Switch", // !!! SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACLMIXS, 1, 0), SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Right Mixer Right DAC Playback Switch", // !!! SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RDACRMIXS, 1, 0), SOC_DAPM_SINGLE("Right Mixer Left DAC Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LDACRMIXS, 1, 0), SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("Line Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LLNS, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RLNS, 1, 0), SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("FM Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_LFMS, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_RFMS, 1, 0), SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("Mic1 Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC1LS, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC1RS, 1, 0), SOC_DAPM_DOUBLE("Mic2 Playback Switch", SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC2LS, SUN4I_CODEC_DAC_ACTL_MIC2RS, 1, 0), };
static const struct snd_soc_dapm_widget sun4i_codec_codec_dapm_widgets[] = { ... SND_SOC_DAPM_MIXER("Left Mixer", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, sun4i_codec_mixer_controls, ARRAY_SIZE(sun4i_codec_mixer_controls)), // !!! SND_SOC_DAPM_MIXER("Right Mixer", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0, sun4i_codec_mixer_controls, ARRAY_SIZE(sun4i_codec_mixer_controls)), // !!! };
Would this be a good way?
I think that would work. We would need to verify that the DAPM routing graph for the existing single channel controls work as intended though.
ChenYu