From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: garlic.tseng@mediatek.com (Garlic Tseng)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:59:15 +0800
Subject: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: add BT implementation
In-Reply-To: <20160705081232.GL6247@sirena.org.uk>
References: <1467629788-14411-1-git-send-email-garlic.tseng@mediatek.com>
 <1467629788-14411-4-git-send-email-garlic.tseng@mediatek.com>
 <20160704144406.GH6247@sirena.org.uk> <1467683533.4212.16.camel@mtksdaap41>
 <20160705081232.GL6247@sirena.org.uk>
Message-ID: <1467709155.10413.7.camel@mtksdaap41>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 10:12 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 09:52:13AM +0800, Garlic Tseng wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 16:44 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > We really shouldn't be writing the registers or other internal data of
> > > the device.  Instead we should be getting the driver for the relevant
> > > hardware component to do it.  If we just write to registers that makes
> > > the interoperation with the real driver for the device more fragile than
> > > it should be, people might update the main driver without noticing the
> > > external driver.
> 
> > The AUDIO_TOP_CON4 is a reg of the ASoC hw module. All the registers
> > which are set in the btmrg operator belong to ASoC hardware. The reg
> > writing you mention above is to power up the MRG interface in the ASoC
> > module.
> 
> The problem is that this is the machine driver, not a driver for the
> chip that's being controlled.

The patch is for platform driver "mt2701-afe-pcm.c", which contorls the
ASoC module, not for machine driver. Maybe the patch sequence is
confusing and I'm sorry about that. Or did I misunderstand your comment?