forked from torvalds/linux
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 140
New memory domain logic #5537
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
jsarha
wants to merge
7
commits into
thesofproject:topic/sof-dev
Choose a base branch
from
jsarha:new_memory_domain_logic
base: topic/sof-dev
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
New memory domain logic #5537
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fa0de06
ASoC: SOF: ipc4-topology: Remove dp_ from all module memory attributes
6167066
ASoC: sof: ipc4-topology: Fix SOF_TKN_COMP_STACK_BYTES_REQUIREMENT id
fba946d
ASoC: sof: ipc4-topology: Component tokens for lifetime and shared bytes
4ab1b09
ASoC: sof: Add lifetime_bytes and shared_bytes to snd_sof_widget
a5f1d58
ASoC: ipc4: Add SOF_IPC4_GLB_CREATE_PIPELINE payload macros and structs
c9d47f8
ASoC: SOF: ipc4-topology: Add payload to pipeline create messages
9eb65a8
ASoC: SOF: ipc4-topology: Change struct sof_ipc4_mod_init_ext_dp_memo…
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you take a look at this patch in the compressed support series?
49d37d0
Would it be possible to align with that implementation, I think it would be much easier to extend (adding the compr on top of this), that is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ack - reuse would be best.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ujfalusi Where can I find this commit (fetching your github or sof-linux did not work)? Easiest would be if I could rebase my branch on top of the compressed support code. Is it close to merging stage? Could it be spit so so that the mod init payload code would be merged early, before the rest?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I am not any more sure what I should reuse, or to what exactly to align with.
I could of course, just within this PR, write a common function to add either struct sof_ipc4_glb_pipe_ext_obj_memory_data or struct sof_ipc4_mod_init_ext_dp_memory_data to a payload object array. The structs are actually identical, but by definition they are different structs an parts of different payloads, even if the object array concept is the same in the both payloads. That is not what you are asking, is it?
But if I could get the processing module configuration commit early and rebase this PR on top of that, then that should solve the merging problem with compress PR, shouldn't it?