On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:13:14AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > On 7/14/08, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ideally someone from the PowerPC community would sign off on this - > > given the nature and volume of discussion people obviously have very > Grant is one of the core PowerPC developers. There's no big OK, fair enough... > Hopefully we can get the driver model sorted out in v2. If the ASoC > driver model is fixed all of this glue code disappears. > The PowerPC side isn't without fault too. PowerPC still doesn't have a > good way to load the fabric/machine driver. I'm finding it difficult to square these two statements - from an ASoC point of view the main thing this patch is doing is adding a machine driver and that's not something that's going to go away. With version 2 you will get the wait for all components to come on-line logic that's implemented here from the ASoC core but that doesn't remove the need for a machine driver to tell the core what to wait for and arrange any machine specific things like clocking. It's this debate about machine drivers that makes me nervous here. Like I say, from an ASoC point of view it's not an issue and the current approach is fine. > Which are we going to call it, fabric or machine? I had been working > on the Apple code in sound/aoa. It is called fabric in that code. The > equivalent driver is called machine in ASoC v1. ASoC has always called it a machine driver. > > > This is most likely temporary glue code to work around limitations in > > > the ASoC v1 framework. I expect ASoC v2 won't need this. > > > > > > It will need some way of providing a machine driver, generic (like this > > one) or otherwise. [BTW, it'd be helpful if you could delete unreferenced quotes when you reply - it makes things much easier to read, especially when reviewing lengthy patches. Unfortunately the GMail UI encourages doing this :(] _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
