[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YuvG4drwG/rYoozp@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 14:17:21 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Chunxu Li <chunxu.li@...iatek.com>
Cc: pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com,
peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com, lgirdwood@...il.com,
angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com, daniel.baluta@....com,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, yc.hung@...iatek.com,
tinghan.shen@...iatek.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, sound-open-firmware@...a-project.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
project_global_chrome_upstream_group@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: SOF: Introduce optional callback
of_machine_select
On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:13:58PM +0800, Chunxu Li wrote:
> @@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ struct snd_sof_dsp_ops {
> void (*machine_unregister)(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev,
> void *pdata); /* optional */
> struct snd_soc_acpi_mach * (*machine_select)(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev); /*
> optional */
> + struct snd_sof_of_mach * (*of_machine_select)(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev);
I don't understand why we pass this in as a function when as far as I
can see it should always be the standard operation provided by the core
- why not just always call the function? We can tell at runtime if the
system is using DT so there's no issue there and there shouldn't be any
concerns with ACPI or other firmware interfaces.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists