[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fcc1b199-644d-8c7f-5e8b-d12b0d9c9a04@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:15:08 -0600
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
vkoul@...nel.org, yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com
Cc: sanyog.r.kale@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] soundwire: add support for static port mapping
On 1/20/21 12:01 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> Some of the soundwire controllers can have static functions assigned
> to each port, like some ports can only do PCM or PDM. This is the situation
> with some of the Qualcomm Controllers.
>
> In such cases its not correct to assign/map any free port on master
> during streaming.
>
> So, this patch provides a way to pass mapped port number along
> with the port config, so that master can assign correct ports based
> on the provided static mapping.
I am not sure I understand the problem or what's different between Intel
and Qualcomm.
On the Intel side we also have fixed-function ports, some for PDM and
some for PCM. They are not interchangeable, and they are also dedicated
for each link.
We don't dynamically allocate ports on the master side, the mapping is
defined by the dai->id and is static. There is a 1:1 relationship
between dai->id and port_number. See intel_register_dai() and
intel_hw_params() in drivers/soundwire/intel.c
In the machine driver we make use of specific master DAIs in the dailink
definitions, just like regular ASoC solutions, so which DAIs you use in
the machine driver defines what ports end-up being used. There is
nothing fancy or dynamic here, the dai/port allocation is defined by the
dailinks. This is a static/worst-case allocation, we don't reassign
ports depending on use-cases, etc.
The only thing that is dynamic is that the programming of each port is
handled based on the bandwidth needs of that port, i.e if you play 16 or
24 bits you'd get fewer or more bitSlots allocated to that dai/port, and
the DPn registers are updated if you have concurrent streaming on other
ports. If you only have a fixed set of payloads, as in the existing
amplifier cases, you can hard-code this allocation as well.
Does this help and can you align on what Intel started with?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists