On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:14:41AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
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.
Jon's concern is that there is no straightforward way to build a kernel with multiple fabric drivers and have the right one chosen via the device tree. This is just a limitation of the device tree model, and no one has come up with a good solution yet.
Indeed - I understand what the problem you guys have is, I just want to make sure that there is a reasonable consensus among the PowerPC people that this approach is OK to go in and won't create ructions. The lack of resolution on this issue makes me nervous about any proposed solution where I haven't seen any explicit indication that the community is OK with it.
Incidentally, nobody ever really commented on my suggestion to do something DMI-like
I'm feeling stupid; what does "DMI" stand for?
- you've already got the board type information
present in the device trees (in the model and compatible information in the root nodes), all that's needed is an API to allow matching on it.
Yes, we have APIs for matching against device trees. Personally, I'm leaning towards having the powerpc platform code (arch/powerpc/platforms/* stuff; not ASoC platform stuff) register a platform device for the machine driver and let as many machine drivers as needed be written. Hopefully we'll be able to do at least one generic machine driver that will be usable by most PowerPC boards, but I don't think it is a requirement or even realistic to shoehorn all powerpc sound circuits into a single driver.
The problem still exists in ASoC V2. However, it's not anything that ASoC itself needs to be concerned with. It's purely a PowerPC problem.
Right, I just want to be clear that you guys all understand what this code does and that there won't be too many complaints after the fact.
Shouldn't be. I'm certainly not pushing this as the end-all be-all powerpc sound machine driver.
ASoC has always called it a machine driver.
Wait, I thought it's supposed to be called a fabric driver now? On PowerPC, it should be called a fabric driver because we already have machine drivers.
I don't mind - you can call it what you like inside PowerPC-specific code.
Oh help! Don't tell us that! Otherwise we'll always be talking across purposes. When ambiguous, let's just be sure to always refer to them as "ASoC machine drivers". :-)
Cheers, g.