On 10/11/21 11:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:48:40AM +0530, Mukunda,Vijendar wrote: >> On 10/11/21 11:19 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>>> + pdevinfo[3].name = "acp5x_nu8821_cs35l41_mach"; > >>> This appears to unconditionally assume that any machine with this >>> hardware is going to have exactly the same CODEC/amp combination - that >>> seems like it's going to go badly at some point. Shouldn't there be >>> some other check that we're instantiating the right machine driver? > >> we will make the platform device as generic one something like "acp5x_mach". > >> Currently we have only one target platform with above codec combinations >> for this APU series. > >> When we get new codecs combinations to support, we will address it in >> machine driver by adding DMI checks for distinguishing codec combinations. > > If that's the case then this machine driver that's being instantiated is > poorly named, and I expect you're going to get issues with assuming a > default here and trying to instantiate this machine on unsuitable > hardware. It'd be better to at least put a bit of the framework in now > and positively indentify systems that can run this machine driver. Will address it by adding DMI checks in machine driver code. > > It really would be good if ACPI system vendors were to adopt a more > standards based approach to platform enumeration, this really isn't > good. Something more standards based like DT has would be much more > scalable. >
