[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140204195447.GY22609@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:54:47 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@...e.fr>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] ASoC: tda998x: add DT documentation of the
tda998x CODEC
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:02:39PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 05:48:49PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> > > + - compatible: must be "nxp,tda998x-codec".
> > It's not clear to me why there's a separate compatible here - as far as
> > I can see this can only appear as part of one of these devices and
> > there's no addressing or other information that'd account for chip
> > variation so I'd not expect to need to bind this independently of the
> > parent.
> If there is no 'compatible', the CODEC module is not loaded, and, when
> the module is in the core, no CODEC device can be created from the DT.
You're confusing implementation details with device tree specification
here. We can easily handle loading a subdriver without having to put
anything in the device tree, just create a platform device like we do
with MFDs.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists