Skip to content

Conversation

@fredoh9
Copy link
Collaborator

@fredoh9 fredoh9 commented Jun 21, 2022

Currently this is based on Rander's SRC PR, #3692. Last two are additional changes for IPC4 TGL multicore support.

The topology I tested is also based on Rander's PR, thesofproject/sof#5913. And I set core_id 1 on SRC module. Topology graph is like this.

cavs-sdw-src-gain

RanderWang and others added 5 commits June 17, 2022 17:33
Dsp converts pcm rate to the one defined by dai. When SRC
is used, the pcm runtime rate is different with dai rate
and we need to fix it up for BE components.

Signed-off-by: Rander Wang <rander.wang@intel.com>
Src module only needs two parameters : base module config
and sink rate. This PR add prepare and setup for src
widgets.

Signed-off-by: Rander Wang <rander.wang@intel.com>
Currently the domain bit in ipc msg for module initialization is
set to lp mode for pipeline. This is not correct since it is for
module domain type:  ll domain or dp domain which are for scheduler
in fw. The domain bit depends on dp domain setting.

Signed-off-by: Rander Wang <rander.wang@intel.com>
Add support for parsing core token.

Signed-off-by: Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>
Add core_get/core_put to support core power up/down for IPC4.

Signed-off-by: Fred Oh <fred.oh@linux.intel.com>
msg.data_ptr = &dx_info;
msg.data_size = sizeof(dx_info);

/* now send the iPC */
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IPC

msg.data_ptr = &dx_info;
msg.data_size = sizeof(dx_info);

/* now send the iPC */
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IPC

struct sof_ipc4_available_audio_format available_fmt;
struct sof_ipc4_msg msg;
};

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

spurious change.

*/
struct sof_ipc4_dx_info {
u32 core_mask;
u32 dx_mask;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is very confusing, please describe more.

is core_mask the active cores, the managed cores? Why do we need a new definition?

Likewise Dx means 1 for D0 and 0 for D3? What about D0ix for core0?

@fredoh9
Copy link
Collaborator Author

fredoh9 commented Jun 27, 2022

Will merge this to #3679

@fredoh9 fredoh9 closed this Jun 27, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants