On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 02:07:42AM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > Shawn Guo wrote: > > > 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". > > I guess that's how we need to do it. The SSI driver should not be looking > for /sound node, but that's the most reliable way to know if we have a new > or old binding. > ... > >> 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. > > At least get rid of any unnecessary references to "imx". > So something like this? /* * If codec-handle property is missing from SSI node, we assume * that the machine driver uses new binding which does not require * SSI driver to trigger machine driver's probe. */ if (!of_get_property(np, "codec-handle", NULL)) { if (ssi_private->ssi_on_imx) { ssi_private->imx_pcm_pdev = platform_device_register_simple("imx-pcm-audio", -1, NULL, 0); if (IS_ERR(ssi_private->imx_pcm_pdev)) { ret = PTR_ERR(ssi_private->imx_pcm_pdev); goto error_dev; } } /* success for new binding case */ return 0; } It does not reduce any reference to "imx" actually. If you think it's worth another iteration of the series, I will post v5 for it. -- Regards, Shawn _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel