Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] Add SoundCard driver for OKI SEMICONDUCTOR ML7213 IOH
At Thu, 7 Jul 2011 21:35:17 +0900, Toshiharu Okada wrote:
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:00:47 +0200 From: Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de
Therefore, I am not considering about ASoC. Do I need to fit this driver to an ASoC framework for an upstream?
Yes, I guess this would be a better choice in your case.
Thank you for your comment.
From now on, We study about ASoC.
If there are a document, a website, a driver, etc. which are referred, please tell us.
Check Documentation/sound/alsa/soc/* files.
Why is choosing ASoS better? Is it better to correspond to ASoC, when Audio Codec is unfixed?
It's not clear what you mean exactly as "unfixed", but in general, the decision rather depends on the usage of the device. If it's designed for a use as a desktop PC component (such as a PCI card or onboard-audio on PC), it'd make sense to implement as a stand-alone, self-contained driver.
OTOH, if it's targeted mainly for embedded area, ASoC is the right answer. It's more modularized, and can be more flexibly configured in the end.
Takashi
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:38:33PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
It's not clear what you mean exactly as "unfixed", but in general, the decision rather depends on the usage of the device. If it's designed for a use as a desktop PC component (such as a PCI card or onboard-audio on PC), it'd make sense to implement as a stand-alone, self-contained driver.
OTOH, if it's targeted mainly for embedded area, ASoC is the right answer. It's more modularized, and can be more flexibly configured in the end.
I'd say it depends rather more on the physical system design. If there are a bunch of separate chips which are interacted with separately by software then ASoC makes sense, if the card is one logical object to hardware a vanilla ALSA driver probably does.
participants (2)
-
Mark Brown -
Takashi Iwai