From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1033050AbeEXLTn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 24 May 2018 07:19:43 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58892 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S967908AbeEXJwq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 24 May 2018 05:52:46 -0400
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:52:44 +0200
Message-ID: <s5hd0xlnzwz.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        "Patel, Chintan M" <chintan.m.patel@intel.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] ASoC: topology: Improve backwards compatibility with v4 topology files
In-Reply-To: <CABXOdTePWquSQaFQsoNTrVNmYydZLqF534zeoTfz0RfLDHSseA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180522165842.233949-1-groeck@google.com>
        <s5hmuwqpjdd.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <20180523135609.GK4828@sirena.org.uk>
        <CABXOdTeCr-ExO9O3XAHK-DnNf5yLGO0TPkXgs60TB90jGNB2_Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <20180523155811.GO4828@sirena.org.uk>
        <CABXOdTePWquSQaFQsoNTrVNmYydZLqF534zeoTfz0RfLDHSseA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:17:23 +0200,
Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:58 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:54:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:56 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:54:54PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > > > > And I'm wondering whether we should move these definitions to uapi
> > > > > headers.
> 
> > > > Yes, we should.
> 
> > > Are you sure ? They used to be in
> > >  sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-tplg-interface.h.
> > > I took my clue from sound/soc/soc-topology.c, where the v4 structures
> are
> > > also
> > > declared locally and not in the uapi files.
> 
> > I'm saying we should move them there.  They're clearly part of the
> > userspace ABI and therefore belong in uapi, it was a mistake to let them
> > be elsewhere.
> 
> They define a firmware file format. Not sure if I would call that userspace
> ABI.

The point is that the defined data is used from both kernel and user
space.  Although strictly speaking it might be no "ABI", it'd make
sense a lot to put the stuff into uapi directory, so that the kernel
can expose it properly and user-space can refer it as the single
source.

> I don't mind adding the structures to
> sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-tplg-interface.h,
> but it seems a bit out of scope to tie this with moving the file to
> include/uapi/sound.
> I think that should be a separate discussion.

Yes, it should be done by another patch.


thanks,

Takashi