Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:01:32 +0000 | From | Adam Belay <> | Subject | Re: [alsa, pnp] more on opl3sa2 (fwd) |
| |
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 03:15:59PM +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Adam Belay wrote: > > > Hi Jaroslav, > > > > How does this sound... > > > > What if we make pnp card services match against all pnp cards and allow more > > than one card driver to use the same card. This can be accomplished if we detach > > the card portion from the driver model and use driver_attach. If you feel it is > > The question is probably another. I know that your solution will work, but > do we need such hack against the driver model in our code? If you work > with cards as buses, it allows us the same model as PCI code. > > > necessary, we could also add an optional card id to the pnp_device_id structure. > > As for the pnpbios, I disagree with putting it under one card. If the pnpbios > > contains two opl3sa2 sound cards then only one will be matched and therefore it > > It's not true. The driver model calls probe for all instances. > > > is a bad idea to represent the pnpbios as a card. When ACPI is introduced, both > > Note that if we make card as bus, then this problem will disapear. > The enumeration will be simple: devices on the one bus. And it's strong > advantage over current implementation when bus == protocol. > > What do you think about this model: > > bus (PnP BIOS) -> devices > bus (ACPI) -> devices > bus (ISA PnP) -> bus (cards) -> devices >
I think this model has potential but before we go that direction I'd like to hear your reactions on another more simplistic model. I'll express it with a hypothetical code example. This model completely drops individual card matching and is compatible with both card users and non-card users.
static struct pnp_device_id snd_als100_pnpids[] = { /* ALS100 - PRO16PNP */ {.card_id = "ALS0001" .id = "@@@0001", .driver_data = ALS100_AUDIO}, {.card_id = "ALS0001" .id = "@X@0001", .driver_data = ALS100_MPU}, {.card_id = "ALS0001" .id = "@H@0001", .driver_data = ALS100_OPL}, /* ALS110 - MF1000 - Digimate 3D Sound */ {.card_id = "ALS0110" .id = "@@@1001", .driver_data = ALS100_AUDIO}, {.card_id = "ALS0001" .id = "@X@1001", .driver_data = ALS100_MPU}, {.card_id = "ALS0001" .id = "@H@1001", .driver_data = ALS100_OPL}, ---> snip };
static int __init snd_card_als100_probe(struct pnp_dev * dev, struct pnp_device_id * id) { ---> snip snd_card_t *card; ---> snip card = snd_card_find(dev->card); /* this function searches for previously registered sound cards and binds this device to it if it finds that it was a member of the same pnp_card */ if (!card) { if ((card = snd_card_new(index[dev], id[dev], THIS_MODULE, sizeof(struct snd_card_als100))) == NULL) return -ENOMEM; } switch (id->driver_data) { case ALS100_AUDIO: ---> snip case ALS100_MPU: ---> snip case ALS100_OPL: ---> snip etc . . .
I'm interested in your opinions on this approach.
Thanks, Adam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |