From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [ANN] Meeting minutes of the Cambourne meeting Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:39:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20110830203906.GC14976@sirena.org.uk> References: <201107261647.19235.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> <20110830201929.GS2061@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201108302237.22468.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201108302237.22468.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Grant Likely , Tomasz Stanislawski , Hans Verkuil , Sakari Ailus , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Sylwester Nawrocki , Tuukka Toivonen , Sylwester Nawrocki , linux-media , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Marek Szyprowski List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:37:21PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2011 22:35:59 Grant Likely wrote: > > Yes. Aggregate devices are sufficiently complex that there is a strong > > argument for using a node to describe one. > Is there any document or sample implementation ? ASoC. Unfortunately there are several rather annoying problems in the Linux device model which make this substantially less straightforward than it might otherwise be, the main ones being waiting for everything to probe and making sure everything suspends and resumes in the correct order.