[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160506164208.GV6292@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:42:08 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Opensource [Adam Thomson]" <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
Sathyanarayana Nujella <sathyanarayana.nujella@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ASoC: da7219: Add ACPI parsing support
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:45:00PM +0000, Opensource [Adam Thomson] wrote:
> On May 06, 2016, 13:39, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > - /* Handle any DT/platform data */
> > > - if ((codec->dev->of_node) && (da7219->pdata))
> > > + /* Handle any DT/ACPI/platform data */
> > > + if (((codec->dev->of_node) || is_acpi_node(codec->dev->fwnode)) &&
> > > + (da7219->pdata))
> > > da7219->pdata->aad_pdata = da7219_aad_of_to_pdata(codec);
> > > da7219_aad_handle_pdata(codec);
> > Surely we should be able to check if there's firmware data without
> > enumerating every possible firmware type?
> There doesn't seem to be a unified check for this. Also, Given these are the
> only two types the driver expects and supports right now, I don't see a problem
> being explicit here in the checking.
Again it's pointing out something that looks like it's missing from the
fwnode API - if people are supposed to be able to write firmware neutral
drivers they should be able to do everything they need at the fwnode
level.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists