From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ASoC: omap-dmic: Add device tree bindings Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:20:47 +0800 Message-ID: <20111211032046.GH2800@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1322819580-7424-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <1322819580-7424-2-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20111203112206.GE6043@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4EDCCAE0.2000009@ti.com> <20111205154611.GV11150@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4EDF27A5.7090909@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EDF27A5.7090909@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: Liam Girdwood , Tony Lindgren , Benoit Cousson , Misael Lopez Cruz , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:45:25AM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > I felt it is the right thing to document the current situation. If we're going to document bindings like this it feels like we should have a split in the directories in the same way that we handle the different stability levels for sysfs documentation. > The documentation will be updated as we can move away from the > "ti,hwmods" tag from DT. > I can place comment in the documentation for omap-dmic, omap-mcpdm > stating that the use of "ti,hwmods" is required at the moment, but it is > temporally solution. At the very least, yes.