+static int sof_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; + const struct sof_dev_desc *desc; + /*TODO: create a generic snd_soc_xxx_mach */ + struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *mach;I wonder if you really need to use the same structures. For Intel we get absolutely zero info from the firmware so rely on an ACPI codec ID as a key to find information on which firmware and topology to use, and which machine driver to load. You could have all this information in a DT blob?Yes. I see your point. I will still need to make a generic structure for snd_soc_acpi_mach so that everyone can use sof_nocodec_setup function. Maybe something like this: struct snd_soc_mach { union { struct snd_soc_acpi_mach acpi_mach; struct snd_soc_of_mach of_mach; } }; and then change the prototype of sof_nocodec_setup.Hi Pierre, I fixed all the comments except the one above. Replacing snd_soc_acpi_mach with a generic snd_soc_mach is not trivial task. I wonder if it is acceptable to get the initial patches as they are now and later switch to generic ACPI/OF abstraction. Asking this because for the moment on the i.MX side I have only implemented no codec version and we don't probe any of the machine drivers we have. So, there is this only one member of snd_soc_acpi_mach that imx version is making use of: mach->drv_name = "sof-nocodec"; That's all. I think the change as it is now is very clean and non-intrusive. Later we will get options to read firmware name and stuff from DT. Anyhow, I don't think we can get rid of snd_dev_desc structure on i.MX. This will be used to store the information read from DT: static struct sof_dev_desc sof_of_imx8qxp_desc = { » .default_fw_path = "imx/sof", » .default_tplg_path = "imx/sof-tplg", » .nocodec_fw_filename = "sof-imx8.ri", » .nocodec_tplg_filename = "sof-imx8-nocodec.tplg", » .ops = &sof_imx8_ops, }; For the moment we will only use the default values.
Yes, that's fine for now. If you don't have a real machine driver then there's nothing urgent to change.
Is the new version on GitHub? Thanks -Pierre
