On 12/10/2011 05:49 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:52:00PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> I'd originally made this property specific to the Tegra+WM8903 machine >> driver, and you'd asked me to make it generic. Is there room to use >> the binding above for the Tegra+WM8903 machine driver only, in order >> to get the driver converted to DT, then define/implement something >> completely generic to replace it, i.e. the stuff below? > > I was asking for the code to be generic, not the binding itself. If the > code could for example take a property name as an argument that'd allow > other bindings to use the same code without having to have a generic > binding which has bits which depend strongly on some Linux specific > machine driver. Ah right, I misunderstood then. So, does the following sound reasonable: Add: snd_soc_of_parse_card_name(struct snd_soc_card *card, const char *prop); .. and have the machine driver call that whenever it decides, rather than having e.g. snd_soc_register_card() call it. Add: int snd_soc_of_parse_audio_routing(struct snd_soc_card *card, const char *prop); .. and have the machine driver call that whenever it decides, rather than having e.g. snd_soc_register_card() call it. Remove Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/embedded-audio-complex.txt from the patches completely, and document the properties solely in the Tegra+WM8903 machine driver binding; we can write embedded-audio-complex.txt if we create a truly generic ASoC driver binding. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks. -- 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
