On 01/01/2014 09:08 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 20:05:05 +0100 > Lars-Peter Clausen <l...@metafoo.de> wrote: > >> As Mark also said, this binding definitely leaks way too much internals of >> the current ASoC implementation. In my opinion the way forward for ASoC is >> to stop to distinguish between different types of components. This is on one >> hand CODECS and CPU-DAIs and on the other hand also front-end and beck-end >> DAIs. The first steps in this direction have already been take by the start >> of the component-fication, but its still a long way to go. Exposing those >> concepts via the devicetree will only make it harder to get rid of them >> later. The bindings for a compound card should essentially describe which >> components are involved and how the fabric between and around them looks >> like. If the type of the component is needed in the ASoC implementation it >> should be possible to auto-discover it. Also I think we want to align the >> devicetree bindings with what the media people have been doing[1]. > > (you forgot the [1] reference)
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
