Oops ?? I exchanged mail address
- alsa-devel@alsa-devel.org + alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Hi Pierre, Mark
I am however struggling with the notion of a 'snd-soc-dummy' platform that exists in some legacy Intel machine drivers. I changed the code following the pattern below but I have really no idea if this is correct. Shouldn't all dailinks either point to a real platform driver or not provide any information about the platform at all? Is there any specific expectation on the ASoC side here?
I guess my posted "no Platform" and "no implicit snd-soc-dummy" patch idea confused you. If so, I'm so sorry about that. I'm not sure this idea is Good or Bad.
I'd expect the dummy driver to just get automatically substituted when required, I'd not expect users to explicitly list it.
Yes agree.
This is my understanding, please correct me if I was wrong. I think current many sound card which doesn't need "platfrom" are 2 patterns.
- select snd-soc-dummy as platfrom
- select cpu component as platfrom
Current ASoC selects 1) automatically if .platfrom_name was NULL. And driver needs to have below if it want to be 2)
dai_link->platform_of_node = dai_link->cpu_of_node
But, I think one of them is enough ? I mean select 2) automatically can be OK? In other words, current some sound card which doesn't need platfrom is calling snd-soc-dummy platfrom method in 1) case. But, is it needed ? I'm not sure...
It seems snd-soc-dummy platfrom is caring about DPCM-BE case, but, I think CPU is snd-soc-dummy in such case. Maybe we need same cade to dummy CPU (?), but *my* DPCM system is working correctly without it.
Best regards
Kuninori Morimoto