On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:02:39PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 05:48:49PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > > > + - compatible: must be "nxp,tda998x-codec". > > It's not clear to me why there's a separate compatible here - as far as > > I can see this can only appear as part of one of these devices and > > there's no addressing or other information that'd account for chip > > variation so I'd not expect to need to bind this independently of the > > parent. > If there is no 'compatible', the CODEC module is not loaded, and, when > the module is in the core, no CODEC device can be created from the DT. You're confusing implementation details with device tree specification here. We can easily handle loading a subdriver without having to put anything in the device tree, just create a platform device like we do with MFDs.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
