Re: AT32 ASoC Driver Patches on alsa-devel

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:24:09 +0200,
Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> 
> > Number 1 reason (for me):  The only driver for my CODEC (WM8510) was an ASoC 
> > driver.  Using sound system other than ASoC would require porting / rewriting 
> > this driver.  Since an AT91 ASoC platform driver already existed, and would 
> > be virtually the same as the AT32 platform driver, this was the best choice 
> > for getting sound quickly.  So this essentially boils down to code reuse.  
> > And if we switch CODEC's for some reason, it's less work.
> 
> That's certainly a good reason, though I don't understand why reusing
> code isn't important on non-SoC platforms.

Of course, important.  And it's actually done in a different way...

> > Another highly compelling reason: power consumption.  Only powers up parts of 
> > the audio pathway that are currently needed.
> 
> Another good reason, but again I don't understand why power management
> isn't important on PCs.

Of course, important.  And it's actually done in a different way...

> > For more reasons:  http://alsa-project.org/main/index.php/ASoC
> 
> The reasons are all good, but yet again, I don't understand why those
> design goals aren't appropriate for ALSA as a whole.

Mostly because of the difference of the target hardware design.  From
the very beginning, ASoC is designed specifically for mobile devices
while ALSA is designed as a more generic abstraction.

Ideally, more fusion would be possible, but practically it's not
always worth.  I don't think you want to merge codes between ext3 and
reiserfs although both have similar "design goals" :)


Takashi