linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ASoC: qcom: common: add Display port Jack function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 07:44:41 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, broonie@...nel.org, perex@...ex.cz,
 tiwai@...e.com, lgirdwood@...il.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ASoC: qcom: common: add Display port Jack function



On 30/05/2024 23:38, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> It will always be DP out of the machine even if an adapter can convert
>>> to HDMI internally.
>>>
>>> The DRM ports are called "DP-1" and "DP-2" so it seems we should match
>>> that.
>>>
>>>> This is the most common naming for the USB-C DP/HDMI jack events.
>>> It looks like some Intel machines use names like "HDMI/DP, pcm=%d Jack"
>>> (with a pcm device number), but we also have "DP Jack". Not sure which
>>> are are used with USB-C, though. (Or if the former actually support HDMI
>>> altmode.)
>> I checked this on my machine which has usb-c and I can confirm using HDMI/DP
>> naming for these jack.
>>
>> Either way I don't mind having any names, but my point here is to be more
>> consistent across.
> I fear it is till not consistent. On the Intel laptop I see following
> jacks:
> 
> numid=18,iface=CARD,name='HDMI/DP,pcm=3 Jack'
> numid=24,iface=CARD,name='HDMI/DP,pcm=7 Jack'
> numid=30,iface=CARD,name='HDMI/DP,pcm=8 Jack'
> 
> On the other hand Mediatek and RockChip use just 'DP Jack'.
> 
> I'd suggest settling on the latter option. We are closer to MTK and
> RockChip rather than Intel.
that is fine with me.

> 
> BTW: a platform can easily have 4 (x1e8100) or even 8 (sc8280xp) DP
> outputs. Could you please point out why there are just 3 jacks?
The CRD platform that I have access to has 3 ports which is why I 
started with 3 ports, but we can add more ports as and when we can 
really test them.

--srini