Rob Herring wrote at Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:16 PM: > On 12/07/2011 05:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > 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? > > I think the whole string should be dropped as it is too generic. My idea was to mark the node as being capable of hosting the generic user-visible-name and audio-routes properties, sort of like a C++ base class. Is there no need to do that kind of thing? -- nvpublic -- 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
