On 20-03-20, 11:36, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 3/20/20 10:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 16-03-20, 14:15, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It's really down to your objection to the use of 'struct driver'... For ASoC > > > > > support we only need the .name and .pm_ops, so there's really no possible > > > > > path forward otherwise. > > > > > > > > It means that we cannot have a solution which is Intel specific into > > > > core. If you has a standalone controller you do not need this. > > > > > > A 'struct driver' is not Intel-specific, sorry. > > > > We are discussing 'struct sdw_master_driver'. Please be very specific in > > you replies and do not use incorrect terminology which confuses people. > > > > Sorry a 'struct sdw_master_driver' IMHO is. As I have said it is not > > needed if you have standalone controller even in Intel case, and rest of > > the world. > > You're splitting hair without providing a solution. > > Please see the series [PATCH 0/5] soundwire: add sdw_master_device support > on Qualcomm platforms > > This solution was tested on Qualcomm platforms, that doesn't require this > sdw_master_driver to be used, so your objections are now invalid. I have given you a solution which you dont like. I have asked you to talk to your colleagues at Intel, I have not heard back. I cant do anymore than this. testing on QC boards doesnt make sense, the contention is 'sdw_master_driver' which doesnt get used. I have said earlier, will say again, if you drop this piece I am ready to apply the rest of the patches. -- ~Vinod
