Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: add platform registration for ALSA SoC drivers

[Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Timur Tabi <timur.tabi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> The sound0 node needs a compatible value,
>
> I knew I was forgetting something

:-)

>
>> the sound-device node should
>> probably have one too.
>
> The aliases, cpus, and memory node don't have a compatible property,
> and I was modeling the design after the aliases node.

Well, there are typically three ways to find a node; by name, by
device_type and by compatible.  device_type is meaningless for the
flattened tree, so that's out.  Matching by name could potentially
have namespace collisions, but I'm not sure.  I'll defer to Ben &
Mitch's judgment here.

The difference with aliases, cpus and memory nodes is that the
conventions around them were defined and agreed on a very long time
ago.  We could get consensus to do the same here, but I cannot make
that call.

>> The sound0 node should have something board specific like
>> "fsl,mpc8610hpcd-sound" to make it clear that the binding really only
>> applies to this particular board.  It would also be a good idea to
>> prefix all of the property names with 'fsl,' to avoid conflicting with
>> any future common bindings or conventions.  Other boards can use the
>> same binding, but they would get a different compatible value (the
>> driver could bind on both).
>
> The aliases node doesn't have an fsl, prefix.  I understand the need
> for the prefix, but I wonder why we don't do that for the aliases
> node.

aliases is not a vendor-specific or limited scope convention.

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.