RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] ASoC: Allow device tree to specify a card's name

Rob Herring wrote at Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:16 PM:

On 12/07/2011 05:58 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:13:41PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

If a card's device was instantiated from device tree, and the device tree
has a "user-visible-name" property, use that as the card's name.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
---
v2: New patch implementing new functionality

Re: the binding documentation:
* "SoC" here refers to the fact this is a binding oriented at System-on-
  chip audio complexes, rather than having to do with "ASoC"; both names
  were derived from the same root.
* Do we need a compatible property for this "base class" binding at all?
  I think it's a good idea, even though the code doesn't actually rely
  on it.
* Should the vendor field in the compatible property be "generic",
  "linux", or absent? I've tried to make these bindings generic and
  applicable to other OSs, so "linux," seems wrong.

Just drop "generic," in my opinion. Rob? Grant? Segher?

I think the whole string should be dropped as it is too generic.

My idea was to mark the node as being capable of hosting the generic
user-visible-name and audio-routes properties, sort of like a C++ base
class. Is there no need to do that kind of thing?

-- 
nvpublic