Re: [PATCH 6/7] ASoC: Samsung: neo1973_gta02: Fix bluetooth DAI registration

[Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>]

On 02/07/2011 06:49 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> As I said when replying to your previous mail and I'm sure some earlier
> ones too you need to fix your MUA to word wrap at less than 80 columns.
> I've yet again reflowed your text so that it's legible.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:37:03PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 02/07/2011 06:02 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> If you think the core isn't behaving helpfully the core should be
>>> changed.  This is part of how APIs evolve to be maximally useful.
> 
>> As I see it the problem is that we have a deviceless dai and there is
>> not really a way to register a dai without a device. But I have no
>> idea right now how to change the core to make it "behave helpfully".
> 
> You don't like the names the core is coming up with.  Make better ones.

I don't like the the names a specific function of the core is coming up with, so I
used another one which names I like.

> 
>> And in a sense snd_soc_register_dais seems to be the right thing to
>> use for now, because the sound card as a whole has multiple dais they
>> just not all registered at the same time.
> 
> The card is only registering one DAI, all the other DAIs are attached to
> other devices in the system.

Isn't the card the combination of these other devices?

> 
>>> To be honest it's not massively obvious that we shouldn't just be taking
>>> the name of the device here, either using a device to represent the
>>> modem
> 
>> Seriously? I don't see how adding a dummy device wouldn't be "bodging
>> around the core". Especially if using snd_soc_register_dais is.
> 
> The bluetooth chip is an actual device which I can point to on the
> board and schematic, having a struct device to represent a device that's
> actually present doesn't seem like a great leap.

Well, there is an actual device representing the bt device, but since this is the
standard bt usb device I have no idea how we would get an reference to it from within
the sound board driver.

> 
>>> or registering the card using snd_soc_register_machine() and using
>>> a more meaningful name for the card seems like a sensible approach here.
> 
>> Well, if were using snd_soc_register_machine to give the card a
>> different name the bluetooth-dai would still be named after the card,
>> wouldn't it? So there is no improvement here as to giving the dai a
>> meaningful name.
> 
> It does mean it's named after the board.

Ok. Could you please explain how snd_soc_register_machine would work and how it would
effekt the naming of the dai? I couldn't find any reference to it.

- Lars