[PATCH 1/2] powerpc: add platform registration for ALSA SoC drivers

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 10:54 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> I'd just like to add that I *really* want to see you guys come to some
>> sort of firm and documented conclusion about the way to handle
>> situations like this.  Some variant of this seems to come up every
>> single time anyone tries to do anything to do with audio on a system
>> using the device tree and it's getting really repetitive.  What would be
>> really useful for audio at this point would be if we could get some sort
>> of decision about how to represent this stuff which we can point people
>> at so that work on systems using the device tree can be done without
>> having to deal with the device tree layout discussions that frequently
>> seem to be involved.

Yes, you're right.  I completely agree.

[...]
> Keep in mind that it's perfectly kosher to create nodes for "virtual"
> devices. IE. We could imagine a node for the "sound subsystem" that
> doesn't actually correspond to any physical device but contain the
> necessary properties that binds everything together. You could even have
> multiple of these if you have separate set of sound HW that aren't
> directly dependant.
>
> I don't have bandwidth to contribute much in this discussion right now,
> at least not to lead it, so I'm happy to let others do so, but I'm happy
> to provide feedback from my own experience as proposals are made.

Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat.  :-(  However, I'll be at UDS in
2 weeks time, and I know audio is a big concern for the Ubuntu folks.
A bunch of the ARM vendors will be there too.  I'll schedule a session
to talk about audio bindings and hopefully that way make some headway
on defining a binding that makes sense and is actually useful.

g.