From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Keepax Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] ASoC: wm8350: remove snd_soc_codec Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:56:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20180329105656.a7yenlfmftg7l73f@localhost.localdomain> References: <87tvt13psj.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <20180328094835.hzthjeoq6vpdgjgm@localhost.localdomain> <877epv7o4m.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com (mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com [67.231.152.168]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779E5266F69 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:57:00 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877epv7o4m.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> 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: Kuninori Morimoto Cc: patches@opensource.cirrus.com, Linux-ALSA , Mark Brown , Lee Jones , Liam Girdwood List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:56:52PM +0000, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > Hi Charles > > Thank you for your feedback > > > > I think no-one is using snd_soc_codec, but please double-check it. > > > I added [RFC] on this patch > > > > > > > Looks to me like there are still users in > > drivers/mfd/cwm8350-core.c: > > > > wm8350_client_dev_register(wm8350, "wm8350-codec", > > &(wm8350->codec.pdev)); > > > > And arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-mx31ads.c: > > > > wm8350->codec.platform_data = &imx32ads_wm8350_setup; > > > > Also it should be simple enough to build test drivers for patches > > like this, you don't need to have the hardware to build the driver. > > The relationships (and my removed) are > > struct wm8350_codec { > struct platform_device *pdev; > - struct snd_soc_codec *codec; > struct wm8350_audio_platform_data *platform_data; > }; > > struct wm8350 { > ... > struct wm8350_codec codec; > ... > } > > This means I think my removed was > > wm8350->codec.codec > > not > > wm8350->codec > > And I think no one is using wm8350->codec.codec. > But can you double check ? Apologies you are of course correct. Looks good from my side: Acked-by: Charles Keepax Thanks, Charles