Mark Brown wrote: >> The PowerPC side isn't without fault too. PowerPC still doesn't have a >> good way to load the fabric/machine driver. > > I'm finding it difficult to square these two statements - from an ASoC > point of view the main thing this patch is doing is adding a machine > driver and that's not something that's going to go away. Jon's concern is that there is no straightforward way to build a kernel with multiple fabric drivers and have the right one chosen via the device tree. This is just a limitation of the device tree model, and no one has come up with a good solution yet. The problem still exists in ASoC V2. However, it's not anything that ASoC itself needs to be concerned with. It's purely a PowerPC problem. >> Which are we going to call it, fabric or machine? I had been working >> on the Apple code in sound/aoa. It is called fabric in that code. The >> equivalent driver is called machine in ASoC v1. > > ASoC has always called it a machine driver. Wait, I thought it's supposed to be called a fabric driver now? On PowerPC, it should be called a fabric driver because we already have machine drivers. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
