On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:28:01PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Vinod Koul <vinod.k...@intel.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:25:57AM +0100, Sebastian Frias wrote: > >> > >> What concrete solution do you propose? > > > > I have already proposed two solutions. > > > > A) Request a channel only when you need it. Obviously we can't do virtual > > channels with this (though we should still use virt-channels framework). > > The sbox setup and teardown can be done as part of channel request and > > freeup. PL08x already does this. > > > > Downside is that we can only have as many consumers at a time as channels. > > > > I have not heard any technical reason for not doing this apart from drivers > > grab the channel at probe, which is incorrect and needs to be fixed > > irrespective of the problem at hand. > > > > This is my preferred option. > > Sorry, but this is not acceptable.
without outlining why.. > > > B) Create a custom driver specific API. This API for example: > > sbox_setup(bool enable, ...) > > can be called by client to explicitly setup and clear up the sbox setting. > > > > This way we can have transactions muxed. > > > > I have not heard any arguments on why we shouldn't do this except Russell's > > comment that A) solves this. > > Driver-specific interfaces are not the solution. That way lies chaos > and madness. Yes fair enough. So would API change which 99% world doesnt need. > This would all be so much easier if you all would just shut up for a > moment and let me fix it properly. Oh please go away, noone is asking you to reply! -- ~Vinod
