On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:59:04PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:01:02AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:47:31PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > What will happen for device tree is that there will be a device in the > > > device tree for the ASoC board. > > > Sounds like you just solved the machine_is_xxx() problem in ASoC land too > > there. If you're _already_ going for separate devices to describe the > > ASoC stuff on the board, then there's no reason that couldn't have already > > been done to eliminate the machine_is_xxx() usage in ASoC - rather than > > complaining about machine_is_xxx() not being a very good solution. > > The problem is that someone has to manually go and add the device to > every board that needs one and people find that tedious and slightly > inelegant Sheesh. So now you're arguing against your statement above? Please stop wasting my time. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
