On 1/26/2011 3:20 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:22:41PM -0800, Patrick Lai wrote:
On 1/25/2011 3:51 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
Yes, that'd be kind of nice but given how tiny these noop drivers are and the fact that they do all need to specify their capabilites it's not clear that there's much advantage from combining them into a single driver - the boiler plate is so small and simple.
Do we consider the case that codec driver is not required such as virtual sink or sink is configured outside of ALSA driver? If we create dummy codec driver for each use case, wouldn't sound/soc/codecs end up littered with bunch of noop drivers?
Yup, but it's not really a big cost - they're all so trivial.
Currently, I already have few dummy codec drivers in mind for the project I am working on. I am not worried about the size of these files. Beside having tons of dummy codec drivers in the source tree, I am also looking at the value and effort to upstream these trivial drivers.
Furthermore, couldn't capabilities being passed through platform device?
Right, but of course you probably end up defining a common set of platform data for each device so people don't have to cut'n'paste the same thing into all the different board files.
Yes, that would be convenient for others. However, I see the effort to create multiple platform devices and paste the capabilities in the board file far less than upstreamng no-op drivers and making changes in Kconfig and Makefile under sound/soc/codecs.
Thanks