Shigeyuki Fukushima wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>   
>>> Is the following kernel config bad idea??
>>> aupsc* at aubus?
>>> audio* at aupsc?
>>> spi* at aupsc?
>>> i2s* at aupsc?
>>> smbus* at aupsc?
>>>   
>>>       
>> I think so.  The reason is that auaudio is e.g. very similar on the
>> au1550 and earlier parts, except that the au1550 implements it on a
>> psc.  I'd like to have a generic auaudio* module, with two different
>> attachment versions:
>>
>>     auaudio_aubus.c -- for the earlier au1500/au1000/au1100
>>     auaudio_aupsc.c -- for the au1550 (and maybe au1200, i haven't
>> looked at the 1200 yet)
>>
>> This may apply to the other modules (spi/i2s,smbus) as well.  If nothing
>> else, it means that you can have a limited config with only the code for
>> the modules you have on board in your kernel.
>>     
>
> Humm.. Ok. I agree the above plan.
>
> aupsc* at aubus?		<-- mips/alchemy/dev/aupsc.c
> ausmbus* at aupsc?		<-- mips/alchemy/dev/ausmbus.c
> auaudio* at aupsc?		<-- mips/alchemy/dev/auauduo_aupsc.c
> aui2s* at aupsc?		<-- mips/alchemy/dev/aui2s.c
> auspi* at aupsc?		<-- mips/alchemy/dev/auspi.c
>
> Is it ok?
>   

This sounds reasonable.  We might need to review the i2s and smbus stuff
though, as they might be attachment specific.  It isn't clear right
now.  I don't *think* the older boards have them, but I don't *know*
that for certain right now.

    -- Garrett
>   
>> Looks reasonable.  I don't have any objections if you want to commit
>> this, as it isn't in any default configs yet.  (C.F. my PCMCIA commits.)
>>     
>
> Ok.
>
>   


-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191