On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:13:14AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
On 7/14/08, Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
Ideally someone from the PowerPC community would sign off on this - given the nature and volume of discussion people obviously have very
Grant is one of the core PowerPC developers. There's no big
OK, fair enough...
Hopefully we can get the driver model sorted out in v2. If the ASoC driver model is fixed all of this glue code disappears.
The PowerPC side isn't without fault too. PowerPC still doesn't have a good way to load the fabric/machine driver.
I'm finding it difficult to square these two statements - from an ASoC point of view the main thing this patch is doing is adding a machine driver and that's not something that's going to go away. With version 2 you will get the wait for all components to come on-line logic that's implemented here from the ASoC core but that doesn't remove the need for a machine driver to tell the core what to wait for and arrange any machine specific things like clocking. It's this debate about machine drivers that makes me nervous here.
Like I say, from an ASoC point of view it's not an issue and the current approach is fine.
Which are we going to call it, fabric or machine? I had been working on the Apple code in sound/aoa. It is called fabric in that code. The equivalent driver is called machine in ASoC v1.
ASoC has always called it a machine driver.
This is most likely temporary glue code to work around limitations in the ASoC v1 framework. I expect ASoC v2 won't need this.
It will need some way of providing a machine driver, generic (like this one) or otherwise.
[BTW, it'd be helpful if you could delete unreferenced quotes when you reply - it makes things much easier to read, especially when reviewing lengthy patches. Unfortunately the GMail UI encourages doing this :(]