On 25/05/11 23:38, Stephen Warren wrote:
Liam Girdwood wrote at Saturday, May 21, 2011 10:20 AM:
On 20/05/11 22:48, Stephen Warren wrote:
I have a few more questions how to represent things in UCM. ... The WM8903 can capture from one or the other or AMIC/DMIC, but not both. ... How to indicate when certain devices can be used together, or are mutually exclusive?
Atm, I don't think we can do this with devices. We can do it with modifiers though (i.e. a modifier can list it's supported devices). It does sound like a useful feature and probably could be based on the modifier supported device code.
OK, it looks pretty easy to modify the code to parse and implement something like:
SectionDevice."AMIC".0 { Comment "Analog Microphone Jack"
ConflictingDevice [ "DMIC", "foo" ]... }
SectionDevice."DMIC".0 { Comment "Internal Digital Microphone"
ConflictingDevice [ "AMIC" ]... }
Does that look reasonable?
Yes, although does it make more sense using "SupportedDevice" instead ?
However, the application is going to want to query these conflict lists, and probably a modifier's SupportedDevice list too.
Should snd_use_case_get be modified to accept a query on e.g.:
_SupportedDevice/${modifier} _ConflictingDevice/${device}
Both returning say a comma separate list of strings i.e. "DMIC,foo". I guess the "get" code could reserve any string starting with "_" for this kind of "system" value looking instead of user-defined Value[] lookup.
How does that sound?
Yeah, this sounds like it would be useful and let the apps know the correct device dependencies.
If that's good, I'll try to make time to implement this.
Ok, sounds good.
Liam