[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABXOdTePWquSQaFQsoNTrVNmYydZLqF534zeoTfz0RfLDHSseA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:17:23 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
"Patel, Chintan M" <chintan.m.patel@...el.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] ASoC: topology: Improve backwards compatibility
with v4 topology files
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:58 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:54:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:56 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:54:54PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > And I'm wondering whether we should move these definitions to uapi
> > > > headers.
> > > Yes, we should.
> > Are you sure ? They used to be in
> > sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-tplg-interface.h.
> > I took my clue from sound/soc/soc-topology.c, where the v4 structures
are
> > also
> > declared locally and not in the uapi files.
> I'm saying we should move them there. They're clearly part of the
> userspace ABI and therefore belong in uapi, it was a mistake to let them
> be elsewhere.
They define a firmware file format. Not sure if I would call that userspace
ABI.
I don't mind adding the structures to
sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-tplg-interface.h,
but it seems a bit out of scope to tie this with moving the file to
include/uapi/sound.
I think that should be a separate discussion.
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists