At Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:57:52 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:04:59PM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote: > > > I've sent a RFC to the alsa mailing list [1] about adding an extra field in > > order to pass the IRQ from the AC97 driver to the ucb1400 driver. The > > result was: > > > Now I'm curious what solution the people here prefer: > > - adding a private field [1] (my favorite) > > As I indicated in reply to your initial RFC any such private field > ought to be a void * in order to allow other information to be passed > through to drivers. The problem with void * is that you don't know what it really is. Yes, it's exactly the purpose - to be generic. But, this means that the true shape of the tossed data from the ac97 controller driver to the platform driver is anonymous, too. So, from that perspective, I find 'int irq' better to assure a strong binding. Of course, if there are more other use cases, this argument doesn't apply well. > Note that this will also need changes in all the relevant AC97 drivers > to support getting the private data from platform/machine definition > code to the relevant driver using whatever methods are appropriate for > the platform. What kind of data are needed be passed? thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
