From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Marroquin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Add MAX98089 CODEC driver Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:16:12 -0600 Message-ID: <4CDC793C.2040406@maxim-ic.com> References: <4CDC5033.50302@maxim-ic.com> <20101111211801.GA3399@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from antispam01.maxim-ic.com (antispam01.maxim-ic.com [205.153.101.182]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F993103815 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:16:15 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20101111211801.GA3399@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> 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: Dimitris Papastamos , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Takashi Iwai , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Hsiang , Liam@alsa-project.org, Girdwood List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Thanks for pointing out the I2C device ID. After looking at the existing drivers that have multiple I2C IDs, I see that the devices can be uniquely identified. With this we should be able to accommodate both devices with the same driver. On 11/11/2010 03:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:21:07PM -0600, Jesse Marroquin wrote: >> This patch adds the initial driver for the MAX98089 CODEC. > > I've not read this properly yet but on a first quick scan through this > bears a more than passing resemblance to the MAX98088 driver - are there > sufficient incompatibilities between the chips to warrant having a > separate driver? http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX98088.pdf > would suggest not... > > Keeping a single driver means less code to maintain, which is generally > a win. Variations between the parts can be accommodated by registering > different controls and so on based on the I2C device ID that the system > registers. >