Repository navigation
topology: fix dmic names (again) - #2942
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This breaks the ALSA control name conventions. Add a prefix instead. Like '2nd Capture Volume' or so.
We broke the upstream UCM configs by introducing pipeline id's to dmic names. This differentiation is mandatory for reasons in alsaconf parsing and ASoC layer combining the control names to pga's. However, the differentiator can't be pipeline id as it can change depending on the topology. So let Dmic0 have the old "Capture Volume" control name and prefix Dmic1 control name with "2nd". This should not break the UCM's as Dmic1 is not currently referenced. Signed-off-by: Jaska Uimonen <jaska.uimonen@intel.com>
lgirdwood
left a comment
lgirdwood
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@juimonen so does this revert to the original name of does this make it unique ?
@kv2019i I'm thinking here we should try and align UCM and topology kcontrol names. Can we have a kcontrol name "header" in UCM that can be pre-processed either via M4 or gcc so that we can align UCM with topology. This would mean that the topologies would depend on alsa-ucm to build.
|
@lgirdwood This reverts the dmic0 to its original name and dmic1 has new identifier. Currently dmic0 is the only one referred in upstream UCM's so it will fix the problem. There is a inherent problem in alsa-lib conf parsing and asoc control name composition. Currently we just can't have different pga with same named control (so from topology we just can't create "dmic0 capture volume" and "dmic1 capture volume" even though that would be the most logical naming). The "capture volume" needs always some extra identifier to separate it from the other control. |
|
On matins with latest sof-dev+master |
|
@perexg @lgirdwood We will merge this patch, right? I have a patch alsa-project/alsa-ucm-conf#35 based on it. Thanks. |
|
@juimonen @singalsu can you confirm @libinyang question. Are we good to merge ? |
|
@lgirdwood, yes I understand this is already in 1.5.1, so yes merge please. |
We broke the upstream UCM configs by introducing pipeline id's to dmic
names. This differentiation is mandatory for reasons in alsaconf parsing
and ASoC layer combining the control names to pga's. However, the
differentiator can't be pipeline id as it can change depending on the
topology. So let Dmic0 have the old "Capture Volume" control name and
index Dmic1 control name with "1". This should not break the UCM's as
Dmic1 is not currently referenced.
Signed-off-by: Jaska Uimonen jaska.uimonen@intel.com