From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pw0-f42.google.com (mail-pw0-f42.google.com [209.85.160.42]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA63B7D1D for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: by pwj6 with SMTP id 6so1384651pwj.15 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:28:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <1272362955.24542.24.camel@pasglop> References: <1272314980-23679-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <1272350168.24542.6.camel@pasglop> <20100427095440.GA15492@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1272362955.24542.24.camel@pasglop> From: Grant Likely Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:27:42 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: add platform registration for ALSA SoC drivers To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kumar.gala@freescale.com, Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Timur Tabi , lrg@slimlogic.co.uk List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 10:54 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> I'd just like to add that I *really* want to see you guys come to some >> sort of firm and documented conclusion about the way to handle >> situations like this. =A0Some variant of this seems to come up every >> single time anyone tries to do anything to do with audio on a system >> using the device tree and it's getting really repetitive. =A0What would = be >> really useful for audio at this point would be if we could get some sort >> of decision about how to represent this stuff which we can point people >> at so that work on systems using the device tree can be done without >> having to deal with the device tree layout discussions that frequently >> seem to be involved. Yes, you're right. I completely agree. [...] > Keep in mind that it's perfectly kosher to create nodes for "virtual" > devices. IE. We could imagine a node for the "sound subsystem" that > doesn't actually correspond to any physical device but contain the > necessary properties that binds everything together. You could even have > multiple of these if you have separate set of sound HW that aren't > directly dependant. > > I don't have bandwidth to contribute much in this discussion right now, > at least not to lead it, so I'm happy to let others do so, but I'm happy > to provide feedback from my own experience as proposals are made. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat. :-( However, I'll be at UDS in 2 weeks time, and I know audio is a big concern for the Ubuntu folks. A bunch of the ARM vendors will be there too. I'll schedule a session to talk about audio bindings and hopefully that way make some headway on defining a binding that makes sense and is actually useful. g.