[alsa-devel] 'modern dailink' transition

[Kuninori Morimoto]

Oops ??
I exchanged mail address

	- alsa-devel at alsa-devel.org
	+ alsa-devel at alsa-project.org

> Hi Pierre, Mark
> 
> > > I am however struggling with the notion of a 'snd-soc-dummy' platform that
> > > exists in some legacy Intel machine drivers. I changed the code following
> > > the pattern below but I have really no idea if this is correct. Shouldn't
> > > all dailinks either point to a real platform driver or not provide any
> > > information about the platform at all? Is there any specific expectation on
> > > the ASoC side here?
> 
> I guess my posted "no Platform" and "no implicit snd-soc-dummy" patch idea
> confused you. If so, I'm so sorry about that.
> I'm not sure this idea is Good or Bad.
> 
> > I'd expect the dummy driver to just get automatically substituted when
> > required, I'd not expect users to explicitly list it.
> 
> Yes agree.
> 
> This is my understanding, please correct me if I was wrong.
> I think current many sound card which doesn't need "platfrom" are 2 patterns.
> 
> 	1) select snd-soc-dummy as platfrom
> 	2) select cpu component as platfrom
> 
> Current ASoC selects 1) automatically if .platfrom_name was NULL.
> And driver needs to have below if it want to be 2)
> 
> 	dai_link->platform_of_node = dai_link->cpu_of_node
> 
> But, I think one of them is enough ?
> I mean select 2) automatically can be OK?
> In other words, current some sound card which doesn't need
> platfrom is calling snd-soc-dummy platfrom method in 1) case.
> But, is it needed ? I'm not sure...
> 
> It seems snd-soc-dummy platfrom is caring about DPCM-BE case,
> but, I think CPU is snd-soc-dummy in such case.
> Maybe we need same cade to dummy CPU (?), but *my* DPCM system
> is working correctly without it.
> 
> Best regards
> ---
> Kuninori Morimoto