On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:36:04PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2020-02-06 11:46 am, Mark Brown wrote: > > This makes sense but it is an ABI break so is going to need > > quirking for existing boards that unfortunately rely on the > > existing behaviour. > I guess the existing (mis)behaviour could be predicated on an > of_machine_is_compatible() check for Rock64 boards - it's ugly, but should > do the job if you feel it's more important to be 100% strict about not > regressing supported systems for any possible kernel/DTB combination. Yes, that's what I'm suggesting - we don't need to be exhaustive but having an obvious place for people to put the quirk in if they are affected is much better practice than just silently letting things break.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
