[alsa-devel] [PATCH v4] ASoC: simple-card: add Device Tree support

Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx at renesas.com
Mon Dec 2 05:57:45 CET 2013

Hi Rob

ping ?

> > >> Still not really a fan of this generic name. Can we define in the
> > >> description above what simple means.
> > >
> > > So, how about "simple-audio-card" ?
> > 
> > That's missing my point. First, I think you should be defining the
> > actual h/w in the DT and doing the mapping of that to a simple audio
> > driver in the kernel. Otherwise how do you fix some quirk on a
> > particular platform later on without updating the DTB? I'm fine with
> > this being the default compatible string, but you should also require
> > a more specific name. Perhaps it is just <soc>-simple-audio or
> > <board>-simple-audio.
> > 
> > Second, you need to define in this binding document what simple means.
> > What properties of the audio subsystem make it simple? The h/w has and
> > doesn't have what? How do I decide if my platform can or should use
> > this binding?
> Basically, on ASoC case, SoC/board needs <soc>-<codec>-audio-card
> (= not simple card) for matching each other, and this is start point.
> This means we need many <soc>-<codec>-audio-card.c driver.
> But, in some case, the difference between
> <socA>-<codecA> <-> <socA>-<codecB> <-> <socB>-<codecA> <-> <socB>-<codecB>
> was just "name". creating too many such driver was not sane for me.
> This simple-audio is used in such case.
> Of course we can update simple-audio feature
> (if it is very simple/common feature)
> but, if you need <soc/board>-audio-card which needs special feature,
> you need to create such driver without using simple-card.
> This is very normal approach on ASoC and there are many such driver.
> Best regards
> ---
> Kuninori Morimoto

More information about the Alsa-devel mailing list