On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Grant Likely > <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Why not? Just have the ssi driver probe routine register the fabric >> device based on the existence of the codec-handle property. It is the >> best way to go about things with the data that you've got available, >> and it is no big deal. The relevant fabric driver can then bind >> against that. You should probably also stuff the ssi device node >> pointer into the fabric device of_node pointer. > > And then where do I put the board-specific initialization code that's > currently in the fabric driver? The programming information for that > initialization is not in the device tree. In the fabric driver; where it is right now. I'm saying *instantiate* the device when the ssi driver gets probed. Use the top level board name when assigning the name so that the correct asoc machine driver gets bound to it. > It sounds to me like you're saying I should take all the code from the > fabric driver and shove it into the SSI driver, just so that I can > avoid instantiating a platform driver. Nope. > Keep in mind that asoc likes to have a different struct device for the > fabric driver and the SSI nodes, so I would need to manually create a > struct device for the fabric device anyway. You can do it this way too, but this is not what I'm saying. >> Linux struct device registrations are cheap, and every struct device >> has a device_node pointer available. It is totally fine to have both >> the ssi device and the fabric device point to the same device node if >> that helps solve your problem of finding references to the right >> things in each driver. (Just as long as only one of them is an >> of_platform driver). > > But I already have it set up like that. The SSI driver is an OF > driver, and the fabric driver is a platform driver. I might be able > to move some code from the fabric driver into the SSI driver to make > it the fabric driver less obnoxious about scanning the device tree. I'm just saying move the registration of the machine device out of arch/powerpc platform code and into the ssi driver. Then you've got a reasonable place to pass shared data (either the ssi device node or device instance or name. Whatever you need) to the machine driver. g. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
