From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bo Shen Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:35:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] ASoC: codecs: wm8904: add dt ids table Message-Id: <54C6EB51.80005@atmel.com> List-Id: References: <1418614273-2303-1-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com> <20150115115425.GX3043@sirena.org.uk> <54B866B9.8000900@atmel.com> <54C65C36.9050106@atmel.com> <20150126164229.GB21293@sirena.org.uk> <54C67007.6000708@metafoo.de> In-Reply-To: <54C67007.6000708@metafoo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Lars-Peter Clausen , Mark Brown , Nicolas Ferre Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Morozov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi Mark, Lars-Perter, On 01/27/2015 12:49 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 01/26/2015 05:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:24:38PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>> Le 16/01/2015 02:17, Bo Shen a =E9crit : >> >>>>> Does this end up in the i2c_driver_id driver data or do we need some >>>>> extra code when devtype is assigned to check for an of_node and >>>>> look at >>>>> the DT data instead? That certainly used to be the case... >> >>>> At the beginning I think as the same as you, and also add the code to >>>> get the data as I do in . However, as I >>>> remember, I2C seems only use the compatible string after the comma, >>>> that >>>> means only for "wlf,wm8904", it uses "wm8904" to match. So, I remove >>>> all >>>> the code I added, and just keep these, and it can get the device type >>>> correctly. >> >>>> So, when I submit the patch and keep the code as simple as possible. >> >>> I don't understand what's keeping this patch from being applied. Voice, >>> do you mind re-sending? >> >> I need to convince myself that the above actually works and is doing the >> right thing; the above explanation sounds like if it works it might be >> relying on a bug. > > I'd call it a undocumented feature. But I wouldn't rely on it being > around for ever. In my opinion to be future proof the driver should > explicitly handle the OF case in the probe function. > I will add this into probe function in next version. Thanks. Best Regards, Bo Shen