On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:13:22PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 12/06/2017 11:29 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
Machine and drivers for SoC internal stuff tend to be bound fairly closely together, simiarly the various drivers for an IP on a SoC often know things about each other for various reasons.
This is the problem, we don't want them to be so tightly bound, and luckily, for the most part they are not. Even a complex and history rich platform like OMAP was rather trivial to split from its various machine drivers.
Anything new that can is already getting pushed into using the existing generic cards. New machine drivers are only for things where that's not possible.
What I am saying is that they go together very closely. Moving the code around isn't going to change that.
Not at first, but this partition will discourage future machine-platform mash-ups (like omap-hdmi-audio.c, yuck).
It's not a pressing problem.
My end-goal here is to start trimming the needed machine drivers and replacing them with generics, a couple OMAP machine drivers do nothing that couldn't be done with the "asoc-simple-card" driver. With the machine drivers split out form the platform drivers it becomes easier to target them.
We need to preserve old bindings to ensure DT compatiblity, the easiest way to do that is to keep old machine drivers around. There are plenty of older drivers that wouldn't be accepted now but would at least need replacing with a compatibility layer that adapts the bindings onto one of the generic drivers. That adaption layer would definitely be useful (basically a big table of platform data) but it'd take time to implement it.
I don't have any need to group the TI platforms (Davinci / OMAP) right now, but I *have* been thinking about grouping the TI CODECs, they share a lot of code that could be factored out if they were stored in their own space sound/soc/codecs/ti/. Plus it would make it easy to add myself
You can share code easily enough without moving anything, just make a library like the arizona drivers did.
as a reviewer for them (I seem to be getting a lot of internal support requests for these drivers these days). That can be a re-org for another day, unless you would like me to post an RFC with what I had in mind?
Wouldn't a few regexps in the MAINTAINERS file cover it? We've already got a bunch of vendors doing this.
If we were going to do this reshuffling then we *really* shouldn't be doing it randomly for only a few vendors. Doing it inconsistently is not going to make anything clearer.
I can send patches for rest of the vendors if you would like to see that and what the end result would look like.
I'm not convinced this is a good idea.