On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 15:26 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 10/15/2015 02:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > > > >> It was never intended that it is possible to bind a component to multiple > >> cards. That it was possible was a bug that was overlooked and some people > >> tried to do it which caused apparently random crashes later on, caused by > >> the data structure corruption. This is why we added the check to catch this > >> kind of mistake early and to avoid the crashes. > > > > This is true, but I do think it's something that we should have some > > story on supporting for some of this hardware that has a bunch of > > channels in one IP block that can't really interact with each other. > > It's going to make it a lot easier for people to think about the > > hardware and how to describe it. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't support it, just that we can't support it with > the current code. And adding support for it will require a fair bit of > restructuring. > > If a hardware block as multiple independent channels the best approach in my > opinion is to register multiple components (Which we can't do at the moment, > because there can only be one component per device). From a framework point Yes... I have tried to register 2 platforms in my ASoC platform driver but alsa considered they are the same platform since they are from the same device. > of view there is no difference between a single device with multiple > independent channels and multiple independent devices with one channel each. > Both have the same logical topology. > Yes, but in my case there is only one HW, one set of registers, and one set of clocks, it should be a single device node in the device tree. > - Lars > >
-- 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/
