[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ecde4150-2782-9529-3288-b1eb9e247883@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:24:33 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Brent Lu <brent.lu@...el.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>,
Yong Zhi <yong.zhi@...el.com>,
Vamshi Krishna Gopal <vamshi.krishna.gopal@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rander Wang <rander.wang@...el.com>,
Bard Liao <bard.liao@...el.com>,
Malik_Hsu <malik_hsu@...tron.corp-partner.google.com>,
Libin Yang <libin.yang@...el.com>,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Paul Olaru <paul.olaru@....nxp.com>,
Curtis Malainey <cujomalainey@...omium.org>,
Mac Chiang <mac.chiang@...el.com>,
Gongjun Song <gongjun.song@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: Intel: sof_rt5682: use id_alt to enumerate
rt5682s
>> @@ -196,6 +201,7 @@ struct snd_soc_acpi_mach snd_soc_acpi_intel_baytrail_machines[] = {
>> },
>> {
>> .id = "10EC5682",
>> + .id_alt = &rt5682s_hp,
>> .drv_name = "sof_rt5682",
>> .sof_fw_filename = "sof-byt.ri",
>> .sof_tplg_filename = "sof-byt-rt5682.tplg",
>
> So this is only useful if there actually are any BYT devices using the "RTL5682"
> ACPI HID, the 100+ BYT/CHT DSDTs which I've gather over time say there aren't any.
>
> Actually there also aren't any using the non alt "10EC5682" ACPI HID either...
>
> Bard Liao, you added this in commit f70abd75b7c6 ("ASoC: Intel: add sof-rt5682 machine driver")
> but I wonder how useful this is. I guess it may be available as (and tested on?) some dev-kit.
>
> But I don't think there us any hardware out there in the wild using this ?
In the past we used this configuration for SOF CI tests with the
MinnowBoard + an RT5682 eval board. We gradually fried most boards and
no longer check this capability for each SOF PR.
So I would agree we can avoid changing anything for BYT/CHT and possibly
APL, it'd be an untested configuration.
in other words, let's add this compatible/alt_id for platforms where we
know it'll be used.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists