From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sedji Gaouaou Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add AC'97 driver for AT91SAM9263ek atmel board. Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:45:54 +0200 Message-ID: <48E49852.2010504@atmel.com> References: <48E3A42C.6090202@atmel.com> <48E48B76.1050809@atmel.com> <20081002092430.GB2848@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from atmel-es2.atmel.fr (mail.atmel.fr [81.80.104.162]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E9A244C6 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:45:57 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20081002092430.GB2848@sirena.org.uk> 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: Mark Brown Cc: Takashi Iwai , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi, Mark Brown a =E9crit : > On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 11:19:48AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> Sedji Gaouaou wrote: >>> Sedji Gaouaou a ?crit : > = >>> When I was writing this patch I was wondering if it should actually be = >>> in the sound/arm directory or in a sound/soc/atmel directory? > = >> sound/arm looks correct unless the driver is based on the ASoC >> framework. > = > Indeed. > = > If you look at pxa2xx-ac97 you'll see that for that there's actually two > drivers (both of which now share most of the actual hardware access code > thanks to some good work by Dmitry Baryshkov), one for the non-ASoC AC97 > framework and one for use within ASoC. Both can be useful, though the > ASoC one is only useful if people design boards which can make use of > the extra features it provides. > = Should I provide the same thing? This driver is not based on the ASoC. Nevertheless I can see that there is a ac97 driver in sound/soc/codec, = so should I do the same as pxa, I mean create 2 drivers?