On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:21:37PM +0530, Ashish Chavan wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 15:42 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, I'm talking about the same thing I was talking about originally. > Thanks for confirming it. From our view point, we still feel that it's > not a good design which requires an additional MFD component even to > support a stand alone CODEC chip. The way we look at it is, there are so What makes you say that a MFD is required for a standalone CODEC? > many stand alone CODEC drivers in kernel and most of them are fine > without the MFD stub. We wish that our DA9055 CODEC driver should also > be treated in the same way. Just placing it in a different hardware > package (together with PMIC, in this case) shouldn't necessitate any > changes in software. e.g. whether any chip is produced as a BGA > component or through hole component, has no effect on it's software. You only need to write the glue once, it'd probably take you less time than writing these e-mails... Once you've handed the regmap to the ASoC core the code is identical.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
