[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171206173059.qw4tt7nizmyo6xbl@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:30:59 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
BenoƮt Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] ASoC: tlv320aic31xx: Remove platform data
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:19:28AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 06:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Then if you want to upstream the driver you'll have to add the platform
> > data support again. Like I say not all architectures have anything
> > other than board files.
> Then they can try, but they will rightfully get nack'd and told to stop
> using board files and use DT/ACPI. Most upstream architectures don't use
> board files anymore anyway, so I doubt this will ever happen.
No. To repeat, not all architectures use DT or ACPI. Expecting someone
to impelement DT or ACPI support for an entire architecture and try to
bring the ecosystem for that architecture along in order to add machine
support is obviously totally unreasonable.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists