Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ASoC: Allow device tree to specify a card's name

[Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 12/07/2011 05:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:13:41PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> If a card's device was instantiated from device tree, and the device tree
>> has a "user-visible-name" property, use that as the card's name.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>> v2: New patch implementing new functionality
>>
>> Re: the binding documentation:
>> * "SoC" here refers to the fact this is a binding oriented at System-on-
>>   chip audio complexes, rather than having to do with "ASoC"; both names
>>   were derived from the same root.
>> * Do we need a compatible property for this "base class" binding at all?
>>   I think it's a good idea, even though the code doesn't actually rely
>>   on it.
>> * Should the vendor field in the compatible property be "generic",
>>   "linux", or absent? I've tried to make these bindings generic and
>>   applicable to other OSs, so "linux," seems wrong.
> 
> Just drop "generic," in my opinion. Rob? Grant? Segher? 

I think the whole string should be dropped as it is too generic.

Rob

> 
>> * Should the property "user-visible-name" have a "generic," prefix or
>>   similar?
> 
> The root node uses "model" for the same purpose, to describe the machine
> model with a user-visible string. Maybe just use that name here?
> 
> 
> -Olof