8 Dec
2011
8 Dec
'11
9:17 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 13:58 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
If a card's device was instantiated from device tree, and the device tree has a "user-visible-name" property, use that as the card's name.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com
v2: New patch implementing new functionality
Re: the binding documentation:
- "SoC" here refers to the fact this is a binding oriented at System-on- chip audio complexes, rather than having to do with "ASoC"; both names were derived from the same root.
- Do we need a compatible property for this "base class" binding at all? I think it's a good idea, even though the code doesn't actually rely on it.
- Should the vendor field in the compatible property be "generic", "linux", or absent? I've tried to make these bindings generic and applicable to other OSs, so "linux," seems wrong.
- Should the property "user-visible-name" have a "generic," prefix or similar?
Just had a quick look and 3 & 4 look mostly fine to me.
3 & 4
Acked-by: Liam Girdwood lrg@ti.com
It also seems that once 1 & 2 are applied, we would almost be able to just have a generic "device tree" machine driver for some simple ASoC machines that have DAPM and no other external logic atm. We would just be missing some runtime configuration for the the DAIs though.
Liam