[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5hr48cup35.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:57:02 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nenghua Cao <nhcao@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: dpcm: don't do hw_param when BE has done hw_param
At Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:48:51 +0000,
Liam Girdwood wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 10:35 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:43:09 +0000,
> > Liam Girdwood wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:46 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > At Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:29:08 +0000,
> > > > Liam Girdwood wrote:
> > > > >
>
> > >
> > > The intention was to use the existing alsa-lib/tinyalsa PCM hw_params
> > > APIs. The BE would just export itself to usespace as a PCM (but without
> > > the capability for direct playback/capture - just format, rate setting)
> >
> > Does it mean that, from kernel perspective, a BE creates a dedicated
> > (virtual) PCM device and expose it to user-space? Or just through
> > special API?
>
> I'm thinking a virtual PCM if you agree.
>
> We could keep the same userspace API for configuration OR we could
> extend the API slightly to add some snd_pcm_virtual_() functions.
> Extending the API would imply the virtual PCM only supports a subset of
> PCM API calls (avoiding any confusion/mixing with regular PCM APIs).
Yeah, I agree that a simple PCM device exposure would be more
straightforward.
thanks,
Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists