topology2: intel: add generic Bluetooth offload pipelines

[kv2019i]

Add generic Bluetooth pipeline definitions that matches what we've had with topology1. Augment passthrough pipelines to allow use of Bluetooth.

[kv2019i]

V2 (Jan 23rd) update:

• removed changes to generic passthrough pipeline definitions, override the values in bt-generic.conf instead
• fix A2DP profile support (48kHz/stereo) -> in V1, the FE->BE connection converted samples incorrectly S32_LE .. the SSP driver stripped the LSB bits so no runtime error was raised, but this is still wrong

[kv2019i]

@ranj063 I probably should fix this before merge to align with #6627 ... right?

[ranj063]

@ranj063 I probably should fix this before merge to align with #6627 ... right?

@kv2019i yes thats right. We should

[marc-hb]

Following the long and winded road starting from https://sof-ci.01.org/sofpr/PR6971/build3487/devicetest/index.html (internal ID 20119), I found that the reason why ADLP_RVP_SDW_IPC4ZPH failed is as usual NOT because that model was "Not Available" but because:

09:02:56 [2023-01-23 17:02:55 UTC][SOF-SH] Now time: 2023-01-23T17:02:55+00:00 | Device time: 2023-01-23T17:02:55+00:00
09:02:57 [2023-01-23 17:02:56 UTC][SOF-SH] ERROR: Failed to retrieve Topology resource from
[http://sof-storage.ostc.intel.com/pr/sof/PR6971-3487/build3487/tplg/topology2/avs-tplg/sof-adl-rt711-4ch.tplg](http://sof-storage.ostc.intel.com/pr/sof/PR6971-3487/build3487/tplg/topology2/avs-tplg/sof-adl-rt711-4ch.tplg

(/job/testflow/62327)

The directory http://sof-storage.ostc.intel.com/pr/sof/PR6971-3487/build3487/tplg/topology2/avs-tplg/ does exist.

Could this be caused by this PR?

[kv2019i]

V3 (Jan 24th) update:

• aligned refactoring done in Topology clean ups - Part 2  #6627 to this one as well
• fixed rebase problem (thanks @marc-hb and @juimonen ) that unintentionally removed one tplg

[juimonen]

Pierre's typo patch went upstream, so not sure if needed to mention that in commit message. LGTM.

[plbossart]

Pierre's typo patch went upstream, so not sure if needed to mention that in commit message. LGTM.

it does impact the alsa-plugin tools one would think, so the docker image should be updated, no? @kv2019i@juimonen@fredoh9

[juimonen]

Pierre's typo patch went upstream, so not sure if needed to mention that in commit message. LGTM.

it does impact the alsa-plugin tools one would think, so the docker image should be updated, no? @kv2019i@juimonen@fredoh9

yes definitely, need update to latest upstream. Just meant that Kai's original message was there perhaps to inform that the needed patch is not yet in upstream alsa-utils head. But now it is -> so we need update also.

[kv2019i]

Let's proceed with merge.

[marc-hb]

There was "logical" conflict between this 4476171 and ae8ca22. They both passed separately but not together - and CI never tested them together.

This sort of "logical conflict" is very rare and too hard to catch in CI, not worth the effort. The mitigations are:

• Do an empty git commit --amend -C HEAD and force-push when the PR hasn't been tested for a while. Don't rebase as it makes it extremely difficult to see what changed. Most CIs merge before testing.
• Keep an eye on the git log and communicate more! :-)