Re: [alsa-devel] [RESENDING] [PATCH 07/22] ASoC: Ux500: Initialise PCM from MSP probe rather than as a device
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 02:05:40PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
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?
There are other drivers which do this already.
I don't think it's an issue to do this.
Has anyone had any more bright ideas on how we might handle this?
The device is still being handled in platform code and I'm desperate to get it out of there.
Why do we need any ideas? Just implement it already.
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 02:05:40PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
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?
There are other drivers which do this already.
I don't think it's an issue to do this.
Has anyone had any more bright ideas on how we might handle this?
The device is still being handled in platform code and I'm desperate to get it out of there.
Why do we need any ideas? Just implement it already.
How do you mean? I've written the patch, just accept it. ;)
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:12:36AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
Why do we need any ideas? Just implement it already.
How do you mean? I've written the patch, just accept it. ;)
Whatever the patch was I don't have it any more, you'll need to resend.
participants (2)
-
Lee Jones -
Mark Brown