Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: Intel: sof_rt5682: use id_alt to enumerate rt5682s

[Curtis Malainey]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart
<pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't see an issue with still using a struct since we are using the
> > same list across multiple machines, but this makes me wonder if maybe
> > we should refactor this into another layer, having the ids at a top
> > structure and then the speaker matches a layer down. E.g.
> >
> >  struct snd_soc_acpi_mach snd_soc_acpi_intel_adl_machines[] = {
> >         {
> >                 .drv_name = "adl_mx98373_rt5682",
> >                 .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
> >                 .quirk_data = &adl_max98373_amp,
> >         },
> >         {
> >                 .drv_name = "adl_mx98357_rt5682",
> >                 .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
> >                 .quirk_data = &adl_max98357a_amp,
> >         },
> >         {
> >                 .drv_name = "adl_mx98360_rt5682",
> >                 .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
> >                 .quirk_data = &adl_max98360a_amp,
> >         }
> > }
> >
> > struct machine_driver adl_rt5682_driver_match {
> >   .id = { "10EC5682", "RTL5682" }
> >   .instances = &adl_rt5682_machines
> > }
>
> We probably need to experiment various options, on one hand the proposal
> removes duplication but in a lot of cases outside of Chromebooks/rt5640
> there is none, so that table rework adds an indirection with no real
> benefit.

Fair point, given the current situation this would benefit RTK boards
only. I have no idea if we will end up in the same boat with any other
boards, but given the current supply chain status I would expect this
(multi-sourcing) to be a way of the future. So maybe an idea we pocket
for now and deploy when we end up in this situation  with more
drivers.