From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: add platform registration for ALSA SoC drivers Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:44:18 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1272314980-23679-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <1272350168.24542.6.camel@pasglop> <20100427095440.GA15492@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1272362955.24542.24.camel@pasglop> <1272502322.24542.135.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-gw0-f51.google.com (mail-gw0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6E010388C for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:44:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by gwb19 with SMTP id 19so2050398gwb.38 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:44:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1272502322.24542.135.camel@pasglop> 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: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kumar.gala@freescale.com, Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Timur Tabi , devicetree-discuss , lrg@slimlogic.co.uk List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 17:13 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> >> > The sound0 node needs a compatible value, >> >> I knew I was forgetting something >> >> > the sound-device node should >> > probably have one too. >> >> The aliases, cpus, and memory node don't have a compatible property, >> and I was modeling the design after the aliases node. > > aliases is a bad choice, it's very very special and is neither a device > nor a virtual device, like chosen. > > cpus is more of a match in your case. > > In any case, I agree, you may not really need a compatible prop for the > virtual device. In fact, Grant, do we really need an enclosing node like > that ? Mostly I'm concerned about 'polluting' the root node in a way that we'd regret later; but perhaps I'm being overly conservative. The sound node will still be uniquely identified by it's compatible property, so perhaps I'm fretting over nothing. > In any case, it's no big deal and shouldn't have much impact on > the design. Right, the point has been reached of quibbling over trivialities. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.