On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It also seems like busy work for users to have to add things like this > to their device trees. I think what I'd expect to see in a strongly > device tree model is something like the tree for a board saying it's > using a given SoC and then a standard device tree for the SoC which is > shared between all the different users of that SoC getting merged in > early in boot (probably from the kernel). That way if we gain support > for a new feature on the SoC or discover something that needs to be > flagged up for workaround then every board using the SoC will pick it > up. This seems particularly useful for things like crypto engines that > are physically internal to the SoC and so don't normally require > per-board hookup. In ASoC terms you do need board specific hookup so > that's a bit less of an issue but it looses us some of the benefit of > having standard chip drivers by pushing some of the chip generic > knowledge into a per-machine location. The lack of shared soc data in device trees is indeed a problem that has been on my radar for a while now. Fortunately I do have a solution[1] which is partially implemented plus a contractual obligation to deliver it to a client in the near future. I fully expect this will become a non-issue between now and about mid November. g. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg00680.html _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
