On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 10:54 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> I'd just like to add that I *really* want to see you guys come to some >> sort of firm and documented conclusion about the way to handle >> situations like this. Some variant of this seems to come up every >> single time anyone tries to do anything to do with audio on a system >> using the device tree and it's getting really repetitive. What would be >> really useful for audio at this point would be if we could get some sort >> of decision about how to represent this stuff which we can point people >> at so that work on systems using the device tree can be done without >> having to deal with the device tree layout discussions that frequently >> seem to be involved. Yes, you're right. I completely agree. [...] > Keep in mind that it's perfectly kosher to create nodes for "virtual" > devices. IE. We could imagine a node for the "sound subsystem" that > doesn't actually correspond to any physical device but contain the > necessary properties that binds everything together. You could even have > multiple of these if you have separate set of sound HW that aren't > directly dependant. > > I don't have bandwidth to contribute much in this discussion right now, > at least not to lead it, so I'm happy to let others do so, but I'm happy > to provide feedback from my own experience as proposals are made. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat. :-( However, I'll be at UDS in 2 weeks time, and I know audio is a big concern for the Ubuntu folks. A bunch of the ARM vendors will be there too. I'll schedule a session to talk about audio bindings and hopefully that way make some headway on defining a binding that makes sense and is actually useful. g. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
