[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:41:56 +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 04:59:04PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:01:02AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:47:31PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> The problem is that someone has to manually go and add the device to
> every board that needs one and people find that tedious and slightly
> inelegant
Sheesh. So now you're arguing against your statement above? Please
stop wasting my time.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists