Thanks for pointing out the I2C device ID. After looking at the existing
drivers that have multiple I2C IDs, I see that the devices can be uniquely
identified. With this we should be able to accommodate both devices with
the same driver.


On 11/11/2010 03:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
quoted text
> 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.
> 

--
unsubscribe notice
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/