On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 02:05:00PM +0800, RongJun Ying wrote:
index 0000000..1637089 --- /dev/null +++ b/sound/soc/sirf/Kconfig @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +config SND_SIRF_SOC
- tristate "Platform DMA driver for the SiRF SoC chips"
- depends on ARCH_SIRF && SND_SOC
- select SND_SOC_GENERIC_DMAENGINE_PCM
No need for the SND_SOC dependency, the subdirectories are only enumerated if it is selected, and looking at the code I don't see a build time dependency on ARCH_SIRF so it should be ARCH_SIRF || COMPILE_TEST.
+static struct dma_chan *sirf_pcm_request_chan(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd,
- struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
+{
- struct snd_dmaengine_dai_dma_data *dma_data;
- dma_data = snd_soc_dai_get_dma_data(rtd->cpu_dai, substream);
- return dma_request_slave_channel(rtd->cpu_dai->dev,
dma_data->chan_name);
+}
+static const struct snd_dmaengine_pcm_config sirf_dmaengine_pcm_config = {
- .prepare_slave_config = snd_dmaengine_pcm_prepare_slave_config,
- .compat_request_channel = sirf_pcm_request_chan,
Do you need the compat_request_chan - I'd expect a newish ARM system to be DT only and the code doesn't look like it's doing anything that the core couldn't handle?
+static struct platform_driver sirf_pcm_driver = {
- .driver = {
.name = "sirf-pcm-audio",
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
- },
- .probe = sirf_pcm_probe,
+};
This doesn't look to ever access any hardware directly so it probably shouldn't be a standalone driver as Lars-Peter says.
+static int __init sirf_pcm_init(void) +{
- int ret = 0;
- ret = platform_driver_register(&sirf_pcm_driver);
- if (ret)
pr_err("failed to register platform driver\n");
- return ret;
+}
module_platform_driver() if there is some real hardware here.