[PATCH] ASoC: Intel: mfld: allow mfld machine to be build

[PATCH] ASoC: Intel: mfld: allow mfld machine to be build

[Vinod Koul]

Commit b97169da0699: ("ASoC: Intel: create atom folder and move atom
platform files in") missed adding Kconfig and Makefile support for
MFLD machine driver, so add it while alos fixing the relative patch to
codec header

Fixes: b97169da0699: ("ASoC: Intel: create atom folder and move atom platform files in")
Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
---
 sound/soc/intel/boards/Makefile       | 2 ++
 sound/soc/intel/boards/mfld_machine.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/boards/Makefile b/sound/soc/intel/boards/Makefile
index a5c5bc5732a2..070cb1afefe1 100644
--- a/sound/soc/intel/boards/Makefile
+++ b/sound/soc/intel/boards/Makefile
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+snd-soc-sst-mfld-objs := mfld_machine.o
 snd-soc-sst-haswell-objs := haswell.o
 snd-soc-sst-byt-rt5640-mach-objs := byt-rt5640.o
 snd-soc-sst-byt-max98090-mach-objs := byt-max98090.o
@@ -19,6 +20,7 @@ snd-soc-skl_rt286-objs := skl_rt286.o
 snd-skl_nau88l25_max98357a-objs := skl_nau88l25_max98357a.o
 snd-soc-skl_nau88l25_ssm4567-objs := skl_nau88l25_ssm4567.o
 
+obj-$(CONFIG_SND_MFLD_MACHINE) += snd-soc-sst-mfld.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_HASWELL_MACH) += snd-soc-sst-haswell.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_RT5640_MACH) += snd-soc-sst-byt-rt5640-mach.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH) += snd-soc-sst-byt-max98090-mach.o
diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/boards/mfld_machine.c b/sound/soc/intel/boards/mfld_machine.c
index 6f44acfb4aae..c3d80123610e 100644
--- a/sound/soc/intel/boards/mfld_machine.c
+++ b/sound/soc/intel/boards/mfld_machine.c
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
 #include <sound/pcm_params.h>
 #include <sound/soc.h>
 #include <sound/jack.h>
-#include "../codecs/sn95031.h"
+#include "../../codecs/sn95031.h"
 
 #define MID_MONO 1
 #define MID_STEREO 2
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: mfld: allow mfld machine to be build

[Vinod Koul]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:41:18AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 11/15/17 4:52 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >Commit b97169da0699: ("ASoC: Intel: create atom folder and move atom
> >platform files in") missed adding Kconfig and Makefile support for
> >MFLD machine driver, so add it while alos fixing the relative patch to
> >codec header
> 
> Does anyone test this code? I don't think anyone on the Intel side has a
> working platform any longer...

That is good question, we had boards for these but not sure if this is
needed. This was not compiling and noone noticed, so I dont mind removing
these bits.

Any objections..

-- 
~Vinod

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: mfld: allow mfld machine to be build

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 11/15/17 9:25 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:41:18AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> On 11/15/17 4:52 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> Commit b97169da0699: ("ASoC: Intel: create atom folder and move atom
>>> platform files in") missed adding Kconfig and Makefile support for
>>> MFLD machine driver, so add it while alos fixing the relative patch to
>>> codec header
>>
>> Does anyone test this code? I don't think anyone on the Intel side has a
>> working platform any longer...
> 
> That is good question, we had boards for these but not sure if this is
> needed. This was not compiling and noone noticed, so I dont mind removing
> these bits.
> 
> Any objections..

I saw those configs were not used and I thought it was deprecated on 
purpose...

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: mfld: allow mfld machine to be build

[Takashi Iwai]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:20:51 +0100,
Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
> On 11/15/17 9:25 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:41:18AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> >> On 11/15/17 4:52 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >>> Commit b97169da0699: ("ASoC: Intel: create atom folder and move atom
> >>> platform files in") missed adding Kconfig and Makefile support for
> >>> MFLD machine driver, so add it while alos fixing the relative patch to
> >>> codec header
> >>
> >> Does anyone test this code? I don't think anyone on the Intel side has a
> >> working platform any longer...
> >
> > That is good question, we had boards for these but not sure if this is
> > needed. This was not compiling and noone noticed, so I dont mind removing
> > these bits.
> >
> > Any objections..
> 
> I saw those configs were not used and I thought it was deprecated on
> purpose...

If dropping this would make things easier, I'm for it, too.


Takashi