| Message ID | 20200901150240.19288-1-yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ASoC: soundwire: Move sdw stream operations to | expand |
On 01-09-20, 23:02, Bard Liao wrote: > sdw stream operation APIs can be called once per stream. dailink > callbacks are good places to call these APIs. Again, please mention here if this is to be merged thru sdw tree or ASoC tree > > Pierre-Louis Bossart (7): > ASoC: soc-dai: clarify return value for get_sdw_stream() > soundwire: stream: fix NULL/IS_ERR confusion > soundwire: intel: fix NULL/ERR_PTR confusion > ASOC: Intel: sof_sdw: add dailink .trigger callback > ASOC: Intel: sof_sdw: add dailink .prepare and .hw_free callback These should be ASoC > soundwire: intel: remove .trigger operation > soundwire: intel: remove stream handling from .prepare and .hw_free > > drivers/soundwire/intel.c | 60 ++++------------------- > drivers/soundwire/stream.c | 2 +- > include/sound/soc-dai.h | 3 +- > sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_sdw.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.17.1
On 9/3/20 5:42 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 01-09-20, 23:02, Bard Liao wrote: >> sdw stream operation APIs can be called once per stream. dailink >> callbacks are good places to call these APIs. > > Again, please mention here if this is to be merged thru sdw tree or ASoC > tree Good point, I thought it wouldn't matter but it does. I just gave it a try and there seems to be a conflict on Mark's tree w/ drivers/soundwire/intel.c (likely due to missing patches already added to Vinod's tree). So this should go to Vinod's tree with Mark's Acked-by tag on the ASoC changes. Alternatively we can also split this in two, with ASoC-only and SoundWire-only patches in separate series if it's easier for maintainers. We would lose the rationale for the changes but that's not essential. >> Pierre-Louis Bossart (7): >> ASoC: soc-dai: clarify return value for get_sdw_stream() >> soundwire: stream: fix NULL/IS_ERR confusion >> soundwire: intel: fix NULL/ERR_PTR confusion >> ASOC: Intel: sof_sdw: add dailink .trigger callback >> ASOC: Intel: sof_sdw: add dailink .prepare and .hw_free callback > > These should be ASoC Right. if you are fine with the content and this goes in your tree, can this be modified while applying? Or do want a v2? >> soundwire: intel: remove .trigger operation >> soundwire: intel: remove stream handling from .prepare and .hw_free >> >> drivers/soundwire/intel.c | 60 ++++------------------- >> drivers/soundwire/stream.c | 2 +- >> include/sound/soc-dai.h | 3 +- >> sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_sdw.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.17.1 >
On 03-09-20, 09:05, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 9/3/20 5:42 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 01-09-20, 23:02, Bard Liao wrote: > > > sdw stream operation APIs can be called once per stream. dailink > > > callbacks are good places to call these APIs. > > > > Again, please mention here if this is to be merged thru sdw tree or ASoC > > tree > > Good point, I thought it wouldn't matter but it does. I just gave it a try > and there seems to be a conflict on Mark's tree w/ drivers/soundwire/intel.c > (likely due to missing patches already added to Vinod's tree). > > So this should go to Vinod's tree with Mark's Acked-by tag on the ASoC > changes. > > Alternatively we can also split this in two, with ASoC-only and > SoundWire-only patches in separate series if it's easier for maintainers. We > would lose the rationale for the changes but that's not essential. If there are no dependencies on each other, that is best preferred option. One should mention in cover-letter about the linked series though. > > > > Pierre-Louis Bossart (7): > > > ASoC: soc-dai: clarify return value for get_sdw_stream() > > > soundwire: stream: fix NULL/IS_ERR confusion > > > soundwire: intel: fix NULL/ERR_PTR confusion > > > ASOC: Intel: sof_sdw: add dailink .trigger callback > > > ASOC: Intel: sof_sdw: add dailink .prepare and .hw_free callback > > > > These should be ASoC > > Right. if you are fine with the content and this goes in your tree, can this > be modified while applying? Or do want a v2? > > > > soundwire: intel: remove .trigger operation > > > soundwire: intel: remove stream handling from .prepare and .hw_free > > > > > > drivers/soundwire/intel.c | 60 ++++------------------- > > > drivers/soundwire/stream.c | 2 +- > > > include/sound/soc-dai.h | 3 +- > > > sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_sdw.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.17.1 > >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> > Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 1:11 PM > To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>; alsa-devel@alsa- > project.org; tiwai@suse.de; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com; > hui.wang@canonical.com; broonie@kernel.org; > srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org; jank@cadence.com; Lin, Mengdong > <mengdong.lin@intel.com>; Kale, Sanyog R <sanyog.r.kale@intel.com>; > rander.wang@linux.intel.com; Liao, Bard <bard.liao@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] ASoC: soundwire: Move sdw stream operations to > > On 03-09-20, 09:05, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > On 9/3/20 5:42 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > On 01-09-20, 23:02, Bard Liao wrote: > > > > sdw stream operation APIs can be called once per stream. dailink > > > > callbacks are good places to call these APIs. > > > > > > Again, please mention here if this is to be merged thru sdw tree or > > > ASoC tree > > > > Good point, I thought it wouldn't matter but it does. I just gave it a > > try and there seems to be a conflict on Mark's tree w/ > > drivers/soundwire/intel.c (likely due to missing patches already added to > Vinod's tree). > > > > So this should go to Vinod's tree with Mark's Acked-by tag on the ASoC > > changes. > > > > Alternatively we can also split this in two, with ASoC-only and > > SoundWire-only patches in separate series if it's easier for > > maintainers. We would lose the rationale for the changes but that's not > essential. > > If there are no dependencies on each other, that is best preferred option. > One should mention in cover-letter about the linked series though. Sent as v2