Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] ASoC: fsl: remove the fatal error checking on codec-handle

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:44:16AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
...
> Ok, fair enough.  I understand that my binding has no way of specifying
> board-specific properties, or anything that isn't directly related to the
> SSI, codec, or DMA controller.
> 
> However, I don't like the way this is being represented as a PowerPC vs.
> ARM issue, because that's just not correct.  It's an "old binding" vs "new
> binding" issue.  For example:
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * In case of imx, the machine driver uses new binding which does
> +	 * not require SSI driver to trigger machine driver's probe, but
> +	 * the pcm device needs to be registered here.
> +	 */
> +	if (ssi_private->ssi_on_imx) {

This could probably change to check whether property codec-handle is
present under SSI node to decide if it runs with "old binding" or
"new binding".

> +		ssi_private->imx_pcm_pdev =
> +			platform_device_register_simple("imx-pcm-audio",
> 
This is still IMX vs. PowerPC thing rather than "old binding" vs. "new
binding" one.

> This prohibits me from using the new binding on any future PowerPC parts,
> because it clearly says "iMX" on everything.

I think we can change it later when the future PowerPC parts come to
use the new binding.  In any case, I do not see this is an issue that
should block the whole series.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel


[Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [PDAs]     [Linux]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Photos]

Add to Google Follow linuxarm on Twitter