On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 03:04:53PM +0000, Lin, Mengdong wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org]
Please fix your mail client to word wrap within paragraphs, your messages are quite hard to read. It also seems to be rewriting quoted material :/
Having two different classes of bespoke handlers like this both called bespoke handlers seems like it's going to lead to problems - either bringing the interfaces closer together or naming them in a way that clarifies their meaning seems better. Instead of just calling them "bespoke handlers" we should probably just call them handlers for whatever kind of control they're for and probably bind them first rather than second so we're doing more specific to less specific handling. That way drivers can also have specific handling for things the topology data didn't anticipate they'd need it for which seems like it might come in handy.
Are you suggesting that we bind bespoke handlers at first and then the standard handlers? Since the bespoke handlers means more vendor-specific handling that need to be taken care at first.
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Why would this mean any additional work? Either things have custom handlers or they don't...