Re: Is there a binding for IORESOURCE_DMA population?

[Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>]

Shawn Guo wrote:
> I was not part of creating imx-ssi.  But I guess that Sascha (Cc-ed)
> might have strong reasons for creating it rather than reusing fsl-ssi.

Not really:

http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2009-November/023425.html

Sascha created imx-ssi because he didn't even notice my driver was already 
there!

> I really doubt that missing device-tree on ARM platform is the only
> reason resulting two ssi drivers.

Yes, it is!  If we had had device tree support on ARM back then, imx-ssi 
would never have existed.

> I'm also not a fan of consolidating device driver between fsl mpc and
> imx family, especially I had a try on eSDHC and saw something ugly
> and negative feedback from people.
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/7832
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/8202

That feedback would not have stopped me from merging the two.  It looks 
like some minor concerns that could have been addressed.

> So unless someone initiates the consolidation of fsl-ssi and imx-ssi,
> I will keep going option b).  If the consolidation is reasonable and
> possible, it can happen anytime no matter whether device-tree is
> added for imx-ssi or not.

If you try to update the imx-ssi driver to support device trees, you'll 
have to convince the ASoC team to override my NAKs.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale