2 Sep
2010
2 Sep
'10
4:25 p.m.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 02:17:29PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
I don't see it are there any problems. For me it looks the routes in WM9090 are unique and registered to own codec instance so there should not be route prefixing needed.
Meh, right. DAPM isn't coping with things that cross CODECs really. This will need to be looked at.
How these amplifier drivers are actually meant to be probed? Currently struct snd_soc_codec_driver->probe is called only from soc_probe_dai_link.
We need to set up a list of anciliary devices which are registered without DAIs for this.