On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:37:15PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > That's just twisted and utterly insane - adding more code for precisely
> > zero benefit what so ever. Think about it - the device tree is already
> > creating platfor
On Friday 09 September 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> That's just twisted and utterly insane - adding more code for precisely
> zero benefit what so ever. Think about it - the device tree is already
> creating platform devices for entries in the device tree file. What's
> the point of ha
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 08:01:35PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > Well, with DT, there won't be any 'board type' anymore. There won't be
> > any 'machine_is_xxx()' to sort it out anymore. Using DT, all that will
> > be h
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 08:01:35PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Well, with DT, there won't be any 'board type' anymore. There won't be
> any 'machine_is_xxx()' to sort it out anymore. Using DT, all that will
> be history - it's all got to be sorted out by either devices or device
> p
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:11:52AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:59:04PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that someone has to manually go and add the device to
> > > every board tha
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:59:04PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> > 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
>
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 f
On 9 September 2011 05:29, Mark Brown
wrote:
> Jassi's suggestion was that we should have some magic to
> automatically generate defaults for the relevant device registrations to
> sidestep these issues.
Perhaps there is some misunderstanding no witchcraft is involved here.
To be clear, I sugg
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> This converts the per-board modules to platform drivers for a
> device created by in main platform setup. These drivers call
> snd_soc_register_card() directly instead of going via a "soc-audio"
> device and the corresponding driver in soc-c
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()
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:47:31PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:37:20PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > With DT of course, all devices get instantiated from the device tree,
> > so there should not be any more platform specific chunks of code in
> > these loca
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:37:20PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> With DT of course, all devices get instantiated from the device tree,
> so there should not be any more platform specific chunks of code in
> these locations (ha, it couldn't be solved with platform data so I
> suspect it
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:29:11PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 22:28 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2011 20:05:48 Mans Rullgard wrote:
>
> > > I had the same thought, but I couldn't find a suitable string anywhere.
> > > Are you suggesting an if(machi
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 22:28 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2011 20:05:48 Mans Rullgard wrote:
> > I had the same thought, but I couldn't find a suitable string anywhere.
> > Are you suggesting an if(machine_is_foo()) cascade in omap_init_audio()?
> > I'll be the first to a
On Thursday 08 September 2011 20:05:48 Mans Rullgard wrote:
> >
> > Can't we do by having omap_init_audio() in arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
> > generate a platform device of name depending upon machine_is_* ?
>
> I had the same thought, but I couldn't find a suitable string anywhere.
> Are you su
On 8 September 2011 20:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 9 September 2011 00:35, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> On 8 September 2011 19:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Mans Rullgard
>>> wrote:
This converts the per-board modules to platform drivers for a
device created by
On 9 September 2011 00:35, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 8 September 2011 19:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Mans Rullgard
>> wrote:
>>> This converts the per-board modules to platform drivers for a
>>> device created by in main platform setup. These drivers call
>>> snd_
On 8 September 2011 19:35, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 8 September 2011 23:48, Mark Brown
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:47:16PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>
>>> Can't we do by having omap_init_audio() in arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>>> generate a platform device of name depending upon machin
On 8 September 2011 19:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Mans Rullgard
> wrote:
>> This converts the per-board modules to platform drivers for a
>> device created by in main platform setup. These drivers call
>> snd_soc_register_card() directly instead of going via a "soc
On 8 September 2011 23:48, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:47:16PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
>> Can't we do by having omap_init_audio() in arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>> generate a platform device of name depending upon machine_is_* ?
>
> That's not a bad idea. If we were going
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:47:16PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> Can't we do by having omap_init_audio() in arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
> generate a platform device of name depending upon machine_is_* ?
That's not a bad idea. If we were going to do that it shouldn't be OMAP
specific, any platform
This converts the per-board modules to platform drivers for a
device created by in main platform setup. These drivers call
snd_soc_register_card() directly instead of going via a "soc-audio"
device and the corresponding driver in soc-core.
Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard
---
Platform device names f
22 matches
Mail list logo
