linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: omap: convert per-board modules to platform drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Sep 2011 00:01:02 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Jarkko Nikula <jhnikula@...il.com>,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Mans Rullgard <mans.rullgard@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: omap: convert per-board modules to platform
	drivers

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:47:31PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:37:20PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 
> > With DT of course, all devices get instantiated from the device tree,
> > so there should not be any more platform specific chunks of code in
> > these locations (ha, it couldn't be solved with platform data so I
> > suspect it will continue to persist, forever unsolved.)
> 
> That's not the case at all for audio, the PCB schematic for the audio
> subsystem on a device like a smartphone is a sufficiently interesting
> piece of hardware to be a device with a driver in its own right.  The
> ASoC machine drivers aren't about instantiating devices, they are about
> controlling the interrelationships between the various devices in the
> audio subsystem.
> 
> What will happen for device tree is that there will be a device in the
> device tree for the ASoC board.

Sounds like you just solved the machine_is_xxx() problem in ASoC land too
there.  If you're _already_ going for separate devices to describe the
ASoC stuff on the board, then there's no reason that couldn't have already
been done to eliminate the machine_is_xxx() usage in ASoC - rather than
complaining about machine_is_xxx() not being a very good solution.

As I said, the problem was solved years ago, and all the component parts
have been there also for years.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/