On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:28:57AM +0900, jassi brar wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Mark Brown > > something a bit more distinctive than -EINVAL. If we want to support > > very generic machine drivers that genuinely don't know what hardware is > > able to do I think we'd be be better off doing something like adding > > capability masks to the drivers so these functions can validate what > > they're being asked to do, at which point we know the actual format so > > returning 0 isn't an issue. ... > Though I am ok with the status quo -- snd_soc_dai_ops members being > truly optional and machine driver writers knowing both the DAIs and calling > only appropriate functions, but if we are to move to more generic machine > drivers how about hiding such members of snd_soc_dai_ops from machine > drivers and let the machine drivers specify the exact requirement to ASoC > via some generic enough data structure. Part of that configuration can be > done by ASoC while the platform specific stuff passed onto DAI drivers. Yes, the capability information I suggested above would be required to implement such a thing. It does need to be very much optional, though, to allow room for more complex systems. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
