On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 09:12:15AM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote:
On 6/10/20 5:29 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not *completely* opposed to having the ability to suggest a name in firmware, the big problem is making use of the DSP completely dependent on having a DT property or doing some non-standard dance in userspace.
Well from what I see we have 4 options.
These are not mutually exclusive approaches.
1. We can have a DT node like RFC'd (Need Rob's comments here)
This is compatible with any hardcoding option.
2. We can have a defconfig flag that hard codes the name (This will probably be met with some resistance if not some really bad reactions and I don't prefer to do it this way)
This is even worse than the ALSA control suggestion.
3. We can hard code the name of the firmware in the c file.
4. Dynamically derive a file name based on the I2C bus-address-device so it would be expected to be "2_4c_tas2563.bin". Just need to figure out how to get the bus number.
Again only option 1 allows us to have different firmware binaries per IC instance and also denotes the use of the DSP. The DSP is not programmed
No, this is not the case at all - a per-device generated file allows this just as well.
So special audio handling is very explicit in the user space. More then likely most standard distributions will not even use the DSP for this device it is more of a specialized use case for each product.
People do things like make AOSP derived distributions for phones.