[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70d6e0cb-22a6-5ada-83a8-b605974bdd84@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 11:36:26 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, tiwai@...e.de,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, broonie@...nel.org,
srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, jank@...ence.com,
slawomir.blauciak@...el.com, Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
Rander Wang <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] soundwire: bus_type: add master_device/driver support
On 3/20/20 10:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 16-03-20, 14:15, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It's really down to your objection to the use of 'struct driver'... For ASoC
>>>> support we only need the .name and .pm_ops, so there's really no possible
>>>> path forward otherwise.
>>>
>>> It means that we cannot have a solution which is Intel specific into
>>> core. If you has a standalone controller you do not need this.
>>
>> A 'struct driver' is not Intel-specific, sorry.
>
> We are discussing 'struct sdw_master_driver'. Please be very specific in
> you replies and do not use incorrect terminology which confuses people.
>
> Sorry a 'struct sdw_master_driver' IMHO is. As I have said it is not
> needed if you have standalone controller even in Intel case, and rest of
> the world.
You're splitting hair without providing a solution.
Please see the series [PATCH 0/5] soundwire: add sdw_master_device
support on Qualcomm platforms
This solution was tested on Qualcomm platforms, that doesn't require
this sdw_master_driver to be used, so your objections are now invalid.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists