On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:20:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:13:56PM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:00:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > I'm still not a big fan of the double registration that's being done - > > > if nothing else the fact that it's not also factoring out the creation > > > of the DSP controls seems wrong. >
We can certainly look at factoring out that control creation once we have a probe function in wm_adsp to put them in. Which is what this patch creates. > > I don't see the point of trying to fight against the design of ASoC with > > the second probe. ASoC gives us what we need at the codec_probe stage > > so why try to invent something different? > > Well, you could've still hung things off the struct device - it's not > like the ASoC level device is a requirement here - and like I say the I'm doing it in the codec_probe because by that time ASoC has created its codec: debugfs node and I can put the dsp debugfs nodes under that. If I created the debugfs earlier before ASoC has probed the codec that node won't exist so I'd have to create my own debugfs node, and it seems a bit odd and untidy to have some codec debug info under the asoc node but some stuff somewhere else. > fact that it's not actually factoring out the initialisation that's > already happening at the ASoC probe isn't good. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
