[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200610102920.GC5005@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:29:20 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
robh@...nel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: tas2562: Add firmware support for
tas2563
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 02:20:29PM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote:
> On 6/9/20 1:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That's really not very idiomatic for how Linux does stuff and seems to
> > pretty much guarantee issues with hotplugging controls and ordering -
> > you'd need special userspace to start up even if it was just a really
> > simple DSP config doing only speaker correction or something. I'm not
> > sure what the advantage would be - what problem is this solving over
> > static names?
> IMO having a static name is the problem. It is an inflexible design.
> Besides the firmware-name property seems to be used in other drivers to
> declare firmwares for the boards.
> But if no one is complaining or submitting patches within the codecs to be
> more flexible with firmware then I can just hard code the name like other
> drivers do.
I'm not *completely* opposed to having the ability to suggest a name in
firmware, the big problem is making use of the DSP completely dependent
on having a DT property or doing some non-standard dance in userspace.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists