On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:43 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: > > > if you need explicit indexing then use an alias. My opinion however > > is that explicit indexing is unnecessary and is just an artifact of > > current i2c subsystem internals. There is already enough information > > in the device tree to match i2c devices with i2c busses without > > resorting to indexes. > > Not for ALSA SoC V2 devices. In ASoC V2, the "fabric" driver needs to > identify > the codec by its specific I2C bus and address number. The codec driver is not > an OF driver (normally), so it doesn't have access to any OF data. It's just > an > I2C driver, so its given an I2C address and some number that represents an > adapter.
Any struct device can have an OF node. We need to fix things so they get filled properly. > Therefore, the fabric driver and the codec driver need to independently > determine the I2C bus number, and they need to match. The fabric driver > parses > the OF tree and looks up the cell-index property. The codec driver uses the > adapter->nr variable. The patch I posted ensures that the two contain the > same > number. No, the fabric driver should get to its device node in a way or another, and from there, find a pointer (via a phandle) to it's codec, and match that to an i2c device. If the current infrastructure doesn't allow that kind of matching, it needs to be fixed. Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
