On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:13:41PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > If a card's device was instantiated from device tree, and the device tree > has a "user-visible-name" property, use that as the card's name. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: New patch implementing new functionality > > Re: the binding documentation: > * "SoC" here refers to the fact this is a binding oriented at System-on- > chip audio complexes, rather than having to do with "ASoC"; both names > were derived from the same root. > * Do we need a compatible property for this "base class" binding at all? > I think it's a good idea, even though the code doesn't actually rely > on it. > * Should the vendor field in the compatible property be "generic", > "linux", or absent? I've tried to make these bindings generic and > applicable to other OSs, so "linux," seems wrong. Just drop "generic," in my opinion. Rob? Grant? Segher? > * Should the property "user-visible-name" have a "generic," prefix or > similar? The root node uses "model" for the same purpose, to describe the machine model with a user-visible string. Maybe just use that name here? -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
