Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: codecs: da9055: Update driver name tofix breakage due to pmic driver with same name

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:11:06PM +0000, Opensource [Adam Thomson] wrote:

> It's limiting in as much as it's insisting on a required order for
> initialisation which shouldn't be there. As said previously they're 2 separate
> devices in one package, with no internal connection, so either could be
> instantiated first. It should be open to the user to decide on this based on
> their platform and needs.

> With your approach, it is more work for no gain here, and holds us to a
> logical representation which doesn't fit with the device in question (which is
> not really an MFD, it's two devices, one of which is an MFD, the PMIC).

I'm having a hard time understanding this as a practical limitation, can
you be more specific about the cases where this would present a noticable
problem?  It'd at least ensure that the configuration where the whole
device is present gets tested to some extent, though that doesn't seem
likely to break again.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature