[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: rt5640: Use the platform data for DMIC settings

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:37:39AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:

> I really wish we would make up our minds about this.

> For I2C (and SPI and perhaps others) the I2C match table works fine as a
> replacement for the of_match table. The only issue might be different
> manufacturers with the same chip names. If this is a problem, why is
> fallback to the I2C match table even allowed any more; we should mandate
> that OF matching only works via the OF match table.

> When DT was young, Grant tried to require of_match for everything for
> completeness, and then I tried enforcing that for reviews, and then
> Grant said not to bother with that, so I stopped, and now you're saying
> it's required again. I really wish I could get consistency in how this
> kind of thing is supposed to work. It's difficult for contributors to
> know what to do if reviewers keep flip-flopping over time.

Well, *I've* not been flip flopping on this, frankly I was unaware that
anyone thought it was a particularly good idea to actively not include
the match table.  It's true that as a matter of practicality you don't
need to bother at the minute but I think especially once you're adding
any explicit code at all to the driver the explicit match strings ought
to be there too.

I suspect this may have been a pragmatic suggestion due to all the
complaints about churn generated by DT.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20140331/313aa8a4/attachment.sig>