Hi Mark > > If [DeviceA] doesn't need complex DAPM/clocks control, > > my indicated style can be one of the solution for it (?). > > But in such case, *general* DAPM/clock solution is difficult. > > One note is we can still use AVS style on this style. > > It can definitely work for some simpler cases, but working out > which cases and making sure that for example things don't break > if someone improves the driver for a piece of hardware gets fun - > things might not be linked up with current code, but the hardware > might actually have more features that cause some cross > connection. Yes, I agree about this. No one want to dive into the mess :) If I work for it, loosen little-by-little, step-by-step, and deep test is my style, not a one big change patch ;) > On the one hand there does seem to be some demand for it, on the > other hand I do worry that it will end up eventually just running > into things that mean we're effectively pulling everything back > together into a single card again, even if what's exposed to > userspace looks like multiple cards somehow. Hmm... I have no idea about this. Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto
