Re: asoc: problem with snd_soc_dai_set_fmt()

[Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:28:57AM +0900, jassi brar wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Mark Brown

> > something a bit more distinctive than -EINVAL.  If we want to support
> > very generic machine drivers that genuinely don't know what hardware is
> > able to do I think we'd be be better off doing something like adding
> > capability masks to the drivers so these functions can validate what
> > they're being asked to do, at which point we know the actual format so
> > returning 0 isn't an issue.

...

> Though I am ok with the status quo -- snd_soc_dai_ops members being
> truly optional and machine driver writers knowing both the DAIs and calling
> only appropriate functions, but if we are to move to more generic machine
> drivers how about hiding such members of snd_soc_dai_ops from machine
> drivers and let the machine drivers specify the exact requirement to ASoC
> via some generic enough data structure. Part of that configuration can be
> done by ASoC while the platform specific stuff passed onto DAI drivers.

Yes, the capability information I suggested above would be required to
implement such a thing.  It does need to be very much optional, though,
to allow room for more complex systems.