Hi Ola,
As requested:
Author: Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org Date: Tue Jul 31 14:06:19 2012 +0100
ASoC: Ux500: Initialise PCM from MSP probe rather than as a device The PCM is a pseudo-device. It doesn't have any of it's own registers or hardware. It rather acts as a layer of abstraction for DMA transfers. Hence, instead of classifying it as a device in its own right, we call the initialisation from the MSP driver. Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>diff --git a/sound/soc/ux500/mop500.c b/sound/soc/ux500/mop500.c index 31c4d26..9707f4a 100644 --- a/sound/soc/ux500/mop500.c +++ b/sound/soc/ux500/mop500.c @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ struct snd_soc_dai_link mop500_dai_links[] = { .stream_name = "ab8500_0", .cpu_dai_name = "ux500-msp-i2s.1", .codec_dai_name = "ab8500-codec-dai.0",
.platform_name = "ux500-pcm.0",
.platform_name = "ux500-msp-i2s.1",@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ struct snd_soc_dai_link mop500_dai_links[] = { .stream_name = "ab8500_1", .cpu_dai_name = "ux500-msp-i2s.3", .codec_dai_name = "ab8500-codec-dai.1",
.platform_name = "ux500-pcm.0",
.platform_name = "ux500-msp-i2s.3",diff --git a/sound/soc/ux500/ux500_msp_dai.c b/sound/soc/ux500/ux500_msp_dai.c
Lee Jones - Sept. 19, 2012, 12:29 p.m. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:59:04PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:20:03PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
I say I don't understand the motivation for this change. All the modern DT bindings are perfectly happy handling this without an explicit shim in the device tree to bodge things for Linux, adding them in seems like it'd be a retrograde step. What benefit do you believe this brings?
How do the all the other DT:ed audio drivers handle the PCM then? More importantly, how would you like to see it handled? Ola has NACKed this patch and explained why:
They instantiate the PCM driver dynamically from the DAI when it's probed which is pretty much what you're patch is doing.
Can we have some closure on this patch please, as it's blocking the patch-set? I'm fairly sure the patch is doing the correct thing, as seconded by Mark.
I still don't like this. It is the dai_link-struct that bothers me. We have "ux500-msp-i2s.1" as name of the platform AND the cpu_dai. The MSP I2S-block is not the platform and it is certainly not both platform and cpu-DAI at the same time. Mark: Did you have a solution for this? Couldn't we just put NULL on the platform_name instead?