[RFC PATCH 0/3] Separate BE DAI HW constraints from FE ones

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 02:58:10PM +0000, Codrin.Ciubotariu at microchip.com wrote:

> How about using a different API for ASoC only, since that's the place of 
> DPCM. Only drivers that do not involve DSPs would have to to be changed 
> to call the new snd_pcm_hw_rule_add() variant.
> Another solution would be to have a different snd_soc_pcm_runtime for BE 
> interfaces (with a new hw_constraints member of course). What do you think?

I'm really not convinced we want to continue to pile stuff on top of
DPCM, it is just fundamentally not up to modelling what modern systems
are able to do - it's already making things more fragile than they
should be and more special cases seems like it's going to end up making
that worse.  That said I've not seen the code but...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20210415/f926e897/attachment.sig>