On 24. 10. 22 16:08, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
If we can report a less confusing driver name to the users, that's fine with me, but I don't get the idea of using the driver name as the first criterion to identify a setup, you'll also need the card name so why not use the card name as primary criterion?
It is not usable for the USB driver where every model has own name set from USB descriptors for example.
How would you use UCM in that context, the use of a driver name would lead to a lot of abstraction potentially, isn't there a risk of not being able to detect specific skews that need variants?
The fine USB device ID matching is used. This USB device ID is in the components string. But yes, it's the next level after the basic lookup.
We can use a similar mechanism as we did with CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_USER_FRIENDLY_LONG_NAMES . The distributions can enable this when packages when UCM configs are updated. Also, new drivers should use new driver name scheme, it's only for the current drivers.
That would be good indeed. FWIW, I reverted this patch in our development tree to remove confusing error messages that make tests fail.
That would not be an Intel only option though, right? There are tons of other ASoC machine drivers who don't set the driver name at all, so it could take time to make that transition.
Yes, but we need to start somewhere. It seems that a most of ASoC drivers do not use card names bigger than 15 characters (I noted this recently in UCM).
Jaroslav