On Sunday 12 of April 2009 20:51:19 Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Sunday 12 of April 2009 19:58:00 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 07:20:15PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Sunday 12 of April 2009 19:06:26 Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > > +static struct platform_device palmld_pxa2xx_pcm = {
> > > >
> > > > This should follow the pattern that everything else uses with the
> > > > struct platform_device in devices.c and board files triggering
> > > > registration of that.
> > >
> > > Half of the platforms use static struct, half use struct. Probably
> > > someone should send a huge patch to make it consistent. I'd like to
> > > have it consistent at least inside the platform file.
> >
> > The general rule is that if it's a part of the CPU it should go in
> > devices.c - things that aren't doing that are mostly just waiting for
> > cleanup.
> >
> > > > > +static struct platform_device palmld_pxa2xx_ac97 = {
> > > > > + .name = "pxa2xx-ac97",
> > > > > + .id = -1,
> > > > > + .dev = {
> > > > > + .platform_data = &palmld_ac97_pdata,
> > > > > + },
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > No, use pxa_set_ac97_info().
> > >
> > > How?
> >
> > Pass the platform data as the argument. This will currently involve
> > merging the two different platform data structures that we have right
> > now.
>
> OK, I see, thanks :-) Will you be happier with this patch then ?
So is it ok this way ? I'd be glad to fix the problem ASAP.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
