On 05/10/2018 01:01 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 10-05-18 19:46, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 5/10/18 10:48 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 10-05-18 17:00, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 5/10/18 5:27 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 08-05-18 20:35, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 5/8/18 10:36 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Many X86 devices using a BYT SoC + RT5640 codec are cheap > devices with > generic DMI strings, causing snd_soc_set_dmi_name() to fail to > set a > long_name, making it impossible for userspace to have a correct UCM > profile which only uses inputs / outputs which are actually > hooked up > on the device. > > Our quirks already specify which input the internal mic is > connected to > and if a single (mono) speaker is used or if the device has stereo > speakers. > > This commit sets a long_name based on the quirks so that > userspace can > have UCM profiles doing the right thing based on the long_name.
Isn't this going to be complicated to manage for UCM? Just with this patch alone, you'd need 8 UCM files to cover all the combinations. 16 if you add the 'sof-' prefix.
seems like UCM should become more 'dynamic' and get quirk information somehow (sysfs?) to enable/disable endpoints rather than rely on name encoding to select the right profile?
I agree that this is not ideal, but this is an improvement from the current state where we would need 1 UCM profile per board (assuming valid DMI data and thus a proper long-name being set), 6 profiles (dmic2 is not used anywhere sofar) is a whole lot easier to manage then 1 profile per board. So as said I believe this is a step in the right direction.
And looking at the foreseeable future I simply don't see any of us having the time to implement an ideal solution for this. I would really like for end users to be able to run the latest upstream kernel + alsa-lib and have things just work, before this hardware becomes obsolete. I know that no-one having time to work on reworking UCM to make it more dynamic is not the best of arguments but it is something to take into consideration.
Thinking more about this on the alsa-lib / UCM profile side we could have something like this:
/usr/share/alsa/ucm/bytcr-rt5640-mono-spk-in1-mic/bytcr-rt5640-mono-spk-in1-mic.conf:
SectionUseCase."HiFi" { File "../bytcr-rt5640/Generic.conf" File "../bytcr-rt5640/MonoSpeaker.conf" File "../bytcr-rt5640/In1Mic.conf" Comment "Play HiFi quality Music" }
SectionDefaults [ cdev "hw:bytcrrt5640" ]
The only problem I can see with that is that the "ConflictingDevice" sections for the various inputs / outputs then would refer to not present SectionDevice sections. I have not tested this suggestion yet, but I'm willing to write an alsa-lib patch to ignore non present ConflictingDevice references, to make my suggestion work.
I think doing things this way, thus avoiding the need to copy and paste a whole lot of UCM code for the 6 profiles it will not be a problem to maintain 6 profiles, as we're really just maintaining 6 config snippets such as the above example and only one complete profile.
Would the solution I outlined above be acceptable to you?
The includes and disabling conflicting devices that aren't present make sense. I have another issue though: for SOF integration I already prepared a set of files, which are mostly identical to the regular ones except that the platform-side mixer controls are removed (or different) and the name of the card/device is different (sof- prefix). See on github.
Hmm, it might make sense to split the includes in platform and codec includes, so to pick my example again we would get:
/usr/share/alsa/ucm/bytcr-rt5640-mono-spk-in1-mic/bytcr-rt5640-mono-spk-in1-mic.conf:
SectionUseCase."HiFi" { SectionVerb { EnableSequence [ cdev "hw:bytcrrt5640"
File "../bytcr-rt5640/EnableSeq.conf" # This contains the platform mixer settings File "../rt5640/EnableSeq.conf" ]
DisableSequence [ ]
Value { PlaybackPCM "hw:bytcrrt5640" CapturePCM "hw:bytcrrt5640" } }
File "../rt5640/Headset.conf" File "../rt5640/MonoSpeaker.conf" File "../rt5640/In1Mic.conf" Comment "Play HiFi quality Music" }
SectionDefaults [ cdev "hw:bytcrrt5640" ]
And then for sof you would just need to offer a sof-rt5640/EnableSeq.conf, or maybe even leave it out completely.
And we might also be able to merge the platform enable sequences into a generic:
bytcr/EnableSeq.conf
I think that will at least fly for bytcr-rt5640 and butcr-rt5651, leading us being able to remove more duplicated UCM config.
How does this sound?
splitting platform and codec sides is a good idea (and something that was done by removing all platform mixer settings from the HiFi files)
the problem remains that we have all these cdev strings that are hard-codec with a card name. Same when the match happens based on a DMI string, how would I know which of the platform settings to apply without querying what the platform driver is?
Well the DMI string would uniquely identify a certain model device, when we write the UCM file we should know what the platform + codec for that device is and we can simply hardcode them, like in my example above.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
For the same DMI device, you could either enable the existing intel/sst or SOF drivers. How would we handle UCM configs then? The DMI name would need to be augmented with a prefix, or we use *something* to add the references to SOF in the platform include and ALSA device string.