On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 13:58 -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. > * Should the property "user-visible-name" have a "generic," prefix or > similar? > Just had a quick look and 3 & 4 look mostly fine to me. 3 & 4 Acked-by: Liam Girdwood <lrg@xxxxxx> It also seems that once 1 & 2 are applied, we would almost be able to just have a generic "device tree" machine driver for some simple ASoC machines that have DAPM and no other external logic atm. We would just be missing some runtime configuration for the the DAIs though. Liam -- 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
