From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Koul Subject: Re: PM issue with Intel SST Atom driver Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:34:15 +0530 Message-ID: <20170425030415.GV6263@localhost> References: <20170424050144.GG6263@localhost> <20170424091213.GO6263@localhost> <20170424095244.GP6263@localhost> <20170424162738.GU6263@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D3526664F for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:02:30 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Liam Girdwood , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Pierre-Louis Bossart List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 08:32:14PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:27:38 +0200, > > > > So we should add the remaining one byt-max98090.c as Takashi fixed > > byt-rt5640.c one. I will send the patch for this one. > > Or maybe we should replace these definitions with some macro to expand > to the mostly same contents? The difference is just a few callback > functions, basically. And while at it, I cant help but wonder but if we can do better and mark it in platform driver thus avoiding it replication in machines. Afterall the atomic trigger is a platform property. Thanks -- ~Vinod