Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757096Ab0KKVR5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:17:57 -0500 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:38290 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755513Ab0KKVR4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:17:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:18:02 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Jesse Marroquin Cc: Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Liam Girdwood , Peter Hsiang , Dimitris Papastamos , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Add MAX98089 CODEC driver Message-ID: <20101111211801.GA3399@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <4CDC5033.50302@maxim-ic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CDC5033.50302@maxim-ic.com> X-Cookie: Don't read everything you believe. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 902 Lines: 18 On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:21:07PM -0600, Jesse Marroquin wrote: > This patch adds the initial driver for the MAX98089 CODEC. I've not read this properly yet but on a first quick scan through this bears a more than passing resemblance to the MAX98088 driver - are there sufficient incompatibilities between the chips to warrant having a separate driver? http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX98088.pdf would suggest not... Keeping a single driver means less code to maintain, which is generally a win. Variations between the parts can be accommodated by registering different controls and so on based on the I2C device ID that the system registers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/