Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:58:10 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: codecs: da9055: Update driver name to fix breakage due to pmic driver with same name |
| |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:11:06PM +0000, Opensource [Adam Thomson] wrote:
> It's limiting in as much as it's insisting on a required order for > initialisation which shouldn't be there. As said previously they're 2 separate > devices in one package, with no internal connection, so either could be > instantiated first. It should be open to the user to decide on this based on > their platform and needs.
> With your approach, it is more work for no gain here, and holds us to a > logical representation which doesn't fit with the device in question (which is > not really an MFD, it's two devices, one of which is an MFD, the PMIC).
I'm having a hard time understanding this as a practical limitation, can you be more specific about the cases where this would present a noticable problem? It'd at least ensure that the configuration where the whole device is present gets tested to some extent, though that doesn't seem likely to break again. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |