| Message ID | 20220301072924.24814-1-jiaxin.yu@mediatek.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ASoC: mediatek: mt8192-mt6359: support machine | expand |
On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 17:03 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 03:29:24PM +0800, Jiaxin Yu wrote: > > From: Jiaxin Yu <jiaxin.yu@mediatek.corp-partner.google.com> > > The environment didn't configure properly so that the header showed > up. > See [1]. > > [1]: > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email#Documentation/git-send-email.txt---fromltaddressgt > Ok, I will take a look at the "from: " header. > > diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8192/mt8192-mt6359-rt1015- > > rt5682.c b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8192/mt8192-mt6359-rt1015-rt5682.c > > [...] > > +static struct snd_soc_card mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card = { > > + .name = "mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s", > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > > + .dai_link = mt8192_mt6359_dai_links, > > + .num_links = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_dai_links), > > + .controls = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_controls, > > + .num_controls = > > ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_controls), > > + .dapm_widgets = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_widgets, > > + .num_dapm_widgets = > > ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_widgets), > > + .dapm_routes = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_routes, > > + .num_dapm_routes = > > ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_routes), > > +}; > > Are the two cards only different from names > (mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_card vs. > mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card)? > Yes, they are only different form names. > > @@ -1150,6 +1177,52 @@ static int mt8192_mt6359_dev_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > > dai_link->num_platforms = > > ARRAY_SIZE(i2s3_rt1015p_platfor > > ms); > > } > > + } else if (strcmp(dai_link->name, "I2S8") == 0) { > > + if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015_rt5682_card > > || > > + card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_card) > > { > > + dai_link->cpus = i2s8_rt5682_cpus; > > + dai_link->num_cpus = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682_cpus); > > + dai_link->codecs = i2s8_rt5682_codecs; > > + dai_link->num_codecs = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682_codecs); > > + dai_link->platforms = > > i2s8_rt5682_platforms; > > + dai_link->num_platforms = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682_platform > > s); > > + } else if (card == > > &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card) { > > + dai_link->cpus = i2s8_rt5682s_cpus; > > + dai_link->num_cpus = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682s_cpus); > > + dai_link->codecs = i2s8_rt5682s_codecs; > > + dai_link->num_codecs = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682s_codecs) > > ; > > + dai_link->platforms = > > i2s8_rt5682s_platforms; > > + dai_link->num_platforms = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s8_rt5682s_platfor > > ms); > > + } > > + } else if (strcmp(dai_link->name, "I2S9") == 0) { > > + if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015_rt5682_card > > || > > + card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682_card) > > { > > + dai_link->cpus = i2s9_rt5682_cpus; > > + dai_link->num_cpus = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682_cpus); > > + dai_link->codecs = i2s9_rt5682_codecs; > > + dai_link->num_codecs = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682_codecs); > > + dai_link->platforms = > > i2s9_rt5682_platforms; > > + dai_link->num_platforms = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682_platform > > s); > > + } else if (card == > > &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card) { > > + dai_link->cpus = i2s9_rt5682s_cpus; > > + dai_link->num_cpus = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682s_cpus); > > + dai_link->codecs = i2s9_rt5682s_codecs; > > + dai_link->num_codecs = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682s_codecs) > > ; > > + dai_link->platforms = > > i2s9_rt5682s_platforms; > > + dai_link->num_platforms = > > + ARRAY_SIZE(i2s9_rt5682s_platfor > > ms); > > + } > > After seeing the code, I am starting to wonder if the reuse is > overkill. If > they (RT5682 vs. RT5682S) only have some minor differences, probably > it could > reuse more by: > > SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(i2s8, ... > SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(i2s9, ... > > ... > > if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card) { > i2s8_codecs.name = RT5682S_DEV0_NAME; > i2s8_codecs.dai_name = RT5682S_CODEC_DAI; > ... > } > > Or even uses of_device_is_compatible() if it would like to reuse the > struct > snd_soc_card. If we reuse the struct snd_soc_card, the card .name will be same. Should I change the card .name through of_device_is_compatible()? Maybe like below: Remove rt5682x related words for snd_soc_card. static struct snd_soc_card mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_card = { .owner = THIS_MODULE, .dai_link = mt8192_mt6359_dai_links, .num_links = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_dai_links), .controls = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_controls, .num_controls = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_controls), .dapm_widgets = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_widgets, .num_dapm_widgets = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_widgets), .dapm_routes = mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_routes, .num_dapm_routes = ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_routes), }; static const struct of_device_id mt8192_mt6359_dt_match[] = { { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192_mt6359_rt1015_rt5682", .data = &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015_rt5682_card, }, { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682", .data = &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_card, }, { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s", .data = &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_card, }, {} }; if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "mediatek, mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682")) { card.name = "mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682"; ... } else if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "mediatek, mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s")) { card.name = "mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s"; ... }
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 12:07:39PM +0800, Jiaxin Yu wrote: > On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 17:03 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote: > > After seeing the code, I am starting to wonder if the reuse is > > overkill. If > > they (RT5682 vs. RT5682S) only have some minor differences, probably > > it could > > reuse more by: > > > > SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(i2s8, ... > > SND_SOC_DAILINK_DEFS(i2s9, ... > > > > ... > > > > if (card == &mt8192_mt6359_rt1015p_rt5682s_card) { > > i2s8_codecs.name = RT5682S_DEV0_NAME; > > i2s8_codecs.dai_name = RT5682S_CODEC_DAI; > > ... > > } > > > > Or even uses of_device_is_compatible() if it would like to reuse the > > struct > > snd_soc_card. > If we reuse the struct snd_soc_card, the card .name will be same. > Should I change the card .name through of_device_is_compatible()? Exactly yes.
The series reuses mt8192-mt6359-rt1015-rt5682.c for supporting machine driver with rt1015p speaker amplifier and rt5682s headset codec. Jiaxin Yu (2): ASoC: dt-bindings: mt8192-mt6359: add new compatible for using rt1015p and rt5682 ASoC: mediatek: mt8192: support rt1015p_rt5682s .../sound/mt8192-mt6359-rt1015-rt5682.yaml | 1 + sound/soc/mediatek/Kconfig | 1 + .../mt8192/mt8192-mt6359-rt1015-rt5682.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)