ASoC: Intel: soc-acpi-intel-nvl-match: Set get_function_tplg_files for rt722 #5595
Conversation
ujfalusi
requested review from
bardliao,
dbaluta,
kv2019i,
lgirdwood,
plbossart and
ranj063
as code owners
ujfalusi
force-pushed
the
peter/sof/pr/nvl-functional-tplg
branch
from
c1bcd87 to
4f49e88
Compare
ujfalusi
changed the title
|
Changes since v1:
|
ujfalusi
force-pushed
the
peter/sof/pr/nvl-functional-tplg
branch
from
4f49e88 to
95eb9b4
Compare
…r rt722 Set the get_function_tplg_files callback for the rt722_l3 configuration so the functional topologies can be used. Fixes: 41566e3 ("ASoC: Intel: soc-acpi-intel-nvl-match: add rt722 l3 support") Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <[email protected]>
ujfalusi
changed the title
|
Changes since v2:
|
| .links = nvl_rt722_l3, | ||
| .drv_name = "sof_sdw", | ||
| .sof_tplg_filename = "sof-nvl-rt722.tplg", | ||
| .get_function_tplg_files = sof_sdw_get_tplg_files, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am thinking if we want to create "sof-nvl-rt722.tplg" or set .sof_tplg_filename = "sof-nvl-dummy.tplg", to always use the function topology?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we can drop this config match and that would force "sof-nvl-dummy.tplg", but you will need #5596 first as if the device have BT link (tested on LNL laptop) then we will fail to probe.
The monolithic topology does not have BT link, so it probes, but with dummy we don't have a fallback path and we stop due to missing fragment for BT
There was a problem hiding this comment.
v2 had reverted this match, but found out that it can break the audio, so decided to do this in smaller steps?
Or we can try to send the two patch for 6.19 via ALSA on top of the NVL-S support, but I'm not sure if I want to test my luck with Iwai-san, that would be the best solution to be honest:
revert 41566e3 ("ASoC: Intel: soc-acpi-intel-nvl-match: add rt722 l3 support") and send #5596 as one series so we will have no monolithic topologies for NVL...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
v2 had reverted this match, but found out that it can break the audio, so decided to do this in smaller steps? Or we can try to send the two patch for 6.19 via ALSA on top of the NVL-S support, but I'm not sure if I want to test my luck with Iwai-san, that would be the best solution to be honest: revert 41566e3 ("ASoC: Intel: soc-acpi-intel-nvl-match: add rt722 l3 support") and send #5596 as one series so we will have no monolithic topologies for NVL...
Yes, it sounds the best solution to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, but will that apply on top of sound tree or needs patches from ASoC...
I can check, but if that is the case then we should send this patch for 6.19 and remove the whole match thing for 6.20
|
I will update #5596 and revert the match altogether, will try to target -rc2 with them |
2 participants
Set the get_function_tplg_files callback for the rt722_l3 configuration so
the functional topologies can be used.
Fixes: 41566e3 ("ASoC: Intel: soc-acpi-intel-nvl-match: add rt722 l3 support")
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi [email protected]