From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH]ASoC: Create a common directory for AVR32 and ARM9 atmel boards. Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:14:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20081003131411.GC26035@sirena.org.uk> References: <48E47D42.8080306@atmel.com> <20081002150731.GH2848@sirena.org.uk> <48E4F025.80907@atmel.com> <20081002181211.GA3345@sirena.org.uk> <48E613BB.6090003@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cassiel.sirena.org.uk (cassiel.sirena.org.uk [80.68.93.111]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042B724720 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:14:13 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48E613BB.6090003@atmel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Sedji Gaouaou Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Geoffrey Wossum , Haavard Skinnemoen , Frank Mandarino List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 02:44:43PM +0200, Sedji Gaouaou wrote: > > Ah, right. While I understand that the hardware is pretty much identical > > are you sure that the APIs for accessing it are the same on both AVR32 > > and AT91? My understanding was that there was some work required to > Actually I based my patch on the at32-pcm and at32-ssc files which were > based on at91-ssc and at91-pcm files, so I don't think there should be > any differences. Right, they're based on each other but they use different APIs to access the hardware - this is the most substantial difference between them. Are you sure that the API you have chosen to use is availiable for both architectures? It's possible that it is but there's no mention of this issue in your patch description and I'd like to confirm.