From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:29:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 07/22] ASoC: Ux500: Initialise PCM from MSP probe rather than as a device In-Reply-To: <20120823125903.GA7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1344527268-5964-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1344527268-5964-8-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <002801cd7c31$14d3d0c0$3e7b7240$@se> <20120820085111.GJ8450@gmail.com> <006d01cd7f5a$65937840$30ba68c0$@se> <20120823092216.GA27264@gmail.com> <20120823113922.GZ7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120823121936.GA1047@gmail.com> <20120823125903.GA7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20120919122943.GB25479@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:59:04PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:20:03PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > I say I don't understand the motivation for this change. All the modern > > > DT bindings are perfectly happy handling this without an explicit shim > > > in the device tree to bodge things for Linux, adding them in seems like > > > it'd be a retrograde step. What benefit do you believe this brings? > > > How do the all the other DT:ed audio drivers handle the PCM then? More > > importantly, how would you like to see it handled? Ola has NACKed this > > patch and explained why: > > They instantiate the PCM driver dynamically from the DAI when it's > probed which is pretty much what you're patch is doing. Can we have some closure on this patch please, as it's blocking the patch-set? I'm fairly sure the patch is doing the correct thing, as seconded by Mark. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog