[Intel-gfx] [alsa-devel] [PATCH v4 4/5] ALSA: x86: hdmi: Add audio support for BYT and CHT

Takashi Iwai tiwai at suse.de
Fri Jan 20 19:09:44 UTC 2017

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:45:53 +0100,
Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 1/20/17 5:15 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:22:31 +0100,
> > Jerome Anand wrote:
> >>
> >> +	had_ops_v1 = had_ops_v1;	/* unused */
> >
> > Until now I didn't realize that the whole v1 stuff is never used in
> > the current patchset.  Will it be ever used in future?  If not, can't
> > we clean it up?  It's a bunch of codes, including the messy union
> > definitions.  If there is no v3 or whatever, we can even get rid of
> > the whole indirect calls.
> >
> > And if v1 (and the indirect ops calls) should be kept, actually what
> > is the difference between v1 and v2, why both implementations do
> > exist?  Please elaborate in comments.
> v1 refers to Medfield/Clovertrail, v2 to Baytrail/CHT. The differences
> are minor and centered on different register definitions or additional
> features/bug corrections. We left the v1 code in so far but we could
> probably remove it since it's not tested anyway. The question is if we
> remove this v1 code and indirect calls now or later, I was planning to
> add DP audio support and making more changes would make the
> integration more difficult.

It's up to you.  I prefer the DP implementation sooner so that I can
test the driver by myself, which makes me easier working on a later
cleanup of the driver code after the merge.

My previous question was about the general question, to determine how
far we can reduce things.



More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list