Comp no wname in kcontrol name #7874
Conversation
Adds "no_wname_in_kcontrol_name" token, and the associated boolean attribute to generic component attributes. If the attribute is set to true for a widget then non of its associated kcontrols names will have the widget name as a prefix. For example "gain.2.1 Post Mixer Analog Playback Volume" becomes just "Post Mixer Analog Playback Volume". Signed-off-by: Jyri Sarha <[email protected]>
|
@jsarha I was discussing the volume test in sof-ci with @marc-hb yesterday and we realized that the IPC4 volume tests do nothing today because there are no mixer names with "PGA" in the name. Now, if we remove the widget name in the mixer names altogether, the tests will also no nothing for IPC3 as well. So we first need to think about what the volume tests do before we move ahead with this change |
| @@ -61,4 +61,5 @@ Class.Widget."eqiir" { | |||
| no_pm "true" | |||
| num_input_pins 1 | |||
| num_output_pins 1 | |||
| no_wname_in_kcontrol_name "true" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not set this to true in widget-common.conf?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ack, seems that base class is best place.
Set no_wname_in_kcontrol_name attribute default to true to for all widgets. This change will drop widget name prefixes from all kcontrols created from currently defined widgets, as they all include widget-common.conf. In practice this means that for example "gain.2.1 Post Mixer Analog Playback Volume" becomes just "Post Mixer Analog Playback Volume" and same for all kcontrols. This behavior can be reverted per widget basis by setting no_wname_in_kcontrol_name attribute to false in the relevant widget. Signed-off-by: Jyri Sarha <[email protected]>
jsarha
force-pushed
the
comp_no_wname_in_kcontrol_name
branch
from
876b1f5 to
aee77aa
Compare
|
Moved the default value change to widget-common.conf. This became relevant again now that thesofproject/linux#4445 got merged and upstreamed. |
The simplest way would be using amixer numid notation to identify the mixers, but maybe a regex pattern to match a particular mixer would be easier to follow. Could someone point me to the test script in question, so I would have better understanding of what I am talking about? |
|
@ranj063 good for you ? |
Ok, this PR has evolved enough so that the branch name does not anymore match the content, so I guess its time to turn the page and create a new one. The predecessor can be found as draft here: #7227