Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v2] soc/sh: Fix I2C dependency for SND_FSI_AK4642 and SND_FSI_DA7210
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:38:55PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
The config option SND_FSI_AK4642 selects SND_SOC_AK4642 which in turn enables the compilation of ak4642.c - however this codec uses I2C to communicate with the HW. Same applies to DA7210.
It uses I2C, but it doesn't matter which I2C master it's interfaced with. A simple depends on I2C will suffice for this purpose just fine.
On 16 Jun 2010, at 04:54, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:38:55PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
The config option SND_FSI_AK4642 selects SND_SOC_AK4642 which in turn enables the compilation of ak4642.c - however this codec uses I2C to communicate with the HW. Same applies to DA7210.
It uses I2C, but it doesn't matter which I2C master it's interfaced with. A simple depends on I2C will suffice for this purpose just fine.
Since these are board specific drivers they know which I2C controller they are hooked up to and so can usefully depend on a specific controller - without the correct controller driver they will not function.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:43:33AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On 16 Jun 2010, at 04:54, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:38:55PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
The config option SND_FSI_AK4642 selects SND_SOC_AK4642 which in turn enables the compilation of ak4642.c - however this codec uses I2C to communicate with the HW. Same applies to DA7210.
It uses I2C, but it doesn't matter which I2C master it's interfaced with. A simple depends on I2C will suffice for this purpose just fine.
Since these are board specific drivers they know which I2C controller they are hooked up to and so can usefully depend on a specific controller - without the correct controller driver they will not function.
I don't really mind one way or the other. Having it depend on the controller is fine, but it's not really much of a stretch to expect it to show up on other boards with other controllers as well.
Very few SH CPUs use the same controller, so in this case it's really more the exception than the norm. As soon as another board takes up one of these blocks then we're forced to either switch to an I2C depends or start making a dependency list for multiple controllers. It's the desire to avoid the latter why I generally prefer the former, but again, I'm fairly impartial regardless.
On 16 Jun 2010, at 08:49, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:43:33AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Since these are board specific drivers they know which I2C controller they are hooked up to and so can usefully depend on a specific controller - without the correct controller driver they will not function.
I don't really mind one way or the other. Having it depend on the controller is fine, but it's not really much of a stretch to expect it to show up on other boards with other controllers as well.
This is the driver for the board itself and its wiring - it's not a chip driver, it's the driver that says how the chips on a given board are connected. For new boards I'd expect you'd end up with a new driver.
participants (2)
-
Mark Brown -
Paul Mundt