On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:53:50AM +0100, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:53:17PM +0700, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:29:00AM +0100, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > > I don't actually know if MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE can reference an object in > > a different file off the top of my head, though a brief test suggests it > > has issues. > Does this approch can work? I'd suggest testing... > > It would be more data driven to just register a different DAI structure > > for the 1795. Both approaches work, it's just a little nicer to avoid > > code where possible. > Yes I know but my idea was exactly to not create special DAI because > technically they are the same code with diffferent constraints. This even > give an other example of the usage of the API. They would still share all the same code, it's just moving the decision to probe time given that this is a trivial constraint change and the constraints are listed in the data structure.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
