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:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:47:31PM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
quoted
What will happen for device tree is that there will be a device in the
device tree for the ASoC board.
quoted
Sounds like you just solved the machine_is_xxx() problem in ASoC land too
there. If you're _already_ going for separate devices to describe the
ASoC stuff on the board, then there's no reason that couldn't have already
been done to eliminate the machine_is_xxx() usage in ASoC - rather than
complaining about machine_is_xxx() not being a very good solution.
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
Sheesh. So now you're arguing against your statement above? Please
stop wasting my time.