From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:37:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 07/22] ASoC: Ux500: Initialise PCM from MSP probe rather than as a device In-Reply-To: <20120823132618.GB1047@gmail.com> References: <1344527268-5964-8-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <002801cd7c31$14d3d0c0$3e7b7240$@se> <20120820085111.GJ8450@gmail.com> <006d01cd7f5a$65937840$30ba68c0$@se> <20120823092216.GA27264@gmail.com> <20120823113922.GZ7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120823121936.GA1047@gmail.com> <20120823125903.GA7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120823132618.GB1047@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120823143757.GB7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:26:19PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > I think Ola is suggesting probing the DMA driver from the machine which > > will also work though I'm not 100% sure if I'm parsing the above > > correctly. The issue in DT terms is that if the DMA controller is > > shared with a bunch of other IPs then it should have one node shared > > between them all and not a bunch of shim nodes inserted in the middle > > which only exists due to the way Linux instantiates stuff. > When you say 'machine', do you mean from arch//mach-*? If so, I'm > keen for that not to happen. No, sound/soc/ux500/snowball.c or whatever. At least that's my guess. > > They instantiate the PCM driver dynamically from the DAI when it's > > probed which is pretty much what you're patch is doing. > So they do it in the same why I have with this patch? Do you know why > Ola might think this is a bad idea? I'm not 100% sure, I'm guessing it might be down to the fact that you end up with multiple PCM drivers. We could avoid that with refcounting but nobody's really worried about it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: