[alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: add platform registration for ALSA SoC drivers

Grant Likely grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Thu Apr 29 05:43:55 CEST 2010

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 13:07 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> > The device-tree helps keep the platform .c file simple and devoid of too
>> > horrible hacks, it allows to easily pass various configuration data to
>> > leaf drivers such as i2c thingies, PHY devices etc... without gross
>> > hooks between these and the platform, but the platform code still has
>> > the upper hand for doing ad-hoc bits and pieces (or overwriting the
>> > device-tree based behaviour) if necessary.
>> Once again, if you can get the device tree guys to buy into this and
>> stick with it that sounds good but my experience has been that this
>> isn't where any of these discussions end up.
> Well, as the person who came up with the flattened device-tree format in
> the first place I suppose I qualify as a "device-tree" guy here :-)
> At the moment, I'd say Grant (and to some extent Jeremy Kerr) are the
> guys in charge though, but yes, I agree with you, there's a tendency to
> be too over-exited and to want to do "too much" with the DT and that is
> counter productive. It's a good tool but it's not going to solve world
> hunger and in some places an ad-hoc bit of C code is a better option :)
> Now, I don't think Grant is totally off the tracks here but I must admit
> I haven't taken the time to ensure I understand perfectly everybody's
> position in that debate. At least I made mine clear, hope this helps :-)

After an IRC conversation with Timur, I think we've pretty much sorted
out the best way to handle the mpc8610 use case that allows the
ssi/dma/codec drivers to remain blissfully ignorant and bind in the
appropriate ASoC machine driver for the board.


More information about the Alsa-devel mailing list