On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 08:30:13PM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > >> At this stage, we're just looking at how to structure device in the device >> tree. The bindings for specific devices will come as required (ie, as we add >> device tree support for them). > > Actually, re-reading the page I'm not sure it really captures my > understanding of the discussion (and all the previous discussions we've > had on the lists and so on) at all. Reading the page the idea that a > machine specific driver is normal and expected doesn't come over at all > well, especially in the design section which doesn't make any mention at > all of machine specific drivers. Do we really want to call them machine drivers? Machine drivers already exist in the basic non-audio platform code. Calling the audio drivers machine drivers overloads the term. In the Apple audio code they are called fabric drivers. > As I keep saying the main thing I'm looking for from any device tree > binding is something that I can point people at so we don't need to go > through the rehashings of this subject which come up every time someone > decides they want to use device trees. > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-devel mailing list > Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel > -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
