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?

> 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.

-- 
Kind Regards,
--- shige
Shigeyuki Fukushima <shige@{FreeBSD,jp.FreeBSD,NetBSD}.org>