On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 04:06:27PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
Hm, I only saw this series today would have been good to be on Cc. I've been working on something very similar. My series goes a bit further though, it implements an (almost generic) dmaengine based PCM driver using the of bindings. So you need almost no platform code. The only things that are platform specific at the moment is the pcm_hardware struct, but I'd like to replace that in the future with something that queries the pcm hardware parameter like max_period from the DMA engine driver. And another bit that is still driver specific is a callback that fills the dma_slave_config struct.
FWIW it might be worth looking at the one rmk wrote but has never wanted to submit for whatever reason.
Err no, stop twisting the facts. I know nothing is ever your fault. You rejected it because it was providing support for non-cyclic supporting DMA engine drivers.
I've since added support to it for cyclic DMA engines, but I've retained the non-cyclic support in it because I don't see why I should remove it when it works for me, especially given the difficulties with getting anything in sound/soc changed once its been merged.
Plus, as I've already said to you, I no longer develop and test it because the platform I was using is now doing service as my firewall, and you'll forgive me for not wanting to take the whole of *.arm.linux.org.uk offline to mess around with ASoC stuff. But that's not to say I don't care about the issue.