From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: ALSA SoC device tree bindings Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:53:29 +0100 Message-ID: References: <201006232030.14138.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> <20100627094246.GA2845@sirena.org.uk> (sfid-20100627_134001_594020_7513B7E6) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: (sfid-20100627_134001_594020_7513B7E6) List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Jon Smirl Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com, Jeremy Kerr , lrg@slimlogic.co.uk List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 27 Jun 2010, at 13:39, Jon Smirl wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Mark Brown >> well, especially in the design section which doesn't make any mention at >> all of machine specific drivers. > Do we really want to call them machine drivers? Machine drivers > already exist in the basic non-audio platform code. Calling the audio > drivers machine drivers overloads the term. In the Apple audio code > they are called fabric drivers. They've been called machine drivers for years. If you find this confusing I'd suggest qualifying the name ("ASoC machine drivers"), I don't think renaming them would be worthwhile just for PowerPC. Given the similarity of their role I'm having a hard time seeing the overlap as a bad thing even for the people who have difficulty with this.