On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:30:13PM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
At this stage, we're just looking at how to structure device in the device tree. The bindings for specific devices will come as required (ie, as we add device tree support for them).
Actually, re-reading the page I'm not sure it really captures my understanding of the discussion (and all the previous discussions we've had on the lists and so on) at all. Reading the page the idea that a machine specific driver is normal and expected doesn't come over at all well, especially in the design section which doesn't make any mention at all of machine specific drivers.
Do we really want to call them machine drivers? Machine drivers already exist in the basic non-audio platform code. Calling the audio drivers machine drivers overloads the term. In the Apple audio code they are called fabric drivers.
As I keep saying the main thing I'm looking for from any device tree binding is something that I can point people at so we don't need to go through the rehashings of this subject which come up every time someone decides they want to use device trees. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel