On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The sound0 node needs a compatible value,
I knew I was forgetting something
> the sound-device node should
> probably have one too.
The aliases, cpus, and memory node don't have a compatible property,
and I was modeling the design after the aliases node.
> The sound0 node should have something board specific like
> "fsl,mpc8610hpcd-sound" to make it clear that the binding really only
> applies to this particular board. It would also be a good idea to
> prefix all of the property names with 'fsl,' to avoid conflicting with
> any future common bindings or conventions. Other boards can use the
> same binding, but they would get a different compatible value (the
> driver could bind on both).
The aliases node doesn't have an fsl, prefix. I understand the need
for the prefix, but I wonder why we don't do that for the aliases
node.
> I'm not a huge fan of the name "sound-devices" for the parent node.
> There are other sorts of things that we need 'virtual' device nodes to
> describe. It would be nice to have a single place for collecting
> nodes for stuff like this. Perhaps this:
>
> system {
> compatible = "system-devices";
> sound0 {
> compatible = "fsl,mpc8610hpcd-sound";
> fsl,ssi = &ssi0;
> fsl,playback-dma = &dma00;
> fsl,capture-dma = &dma01;
> fsl,codec = &cs4270;
> };
> };
I like that.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
