cirrus_laguna.o vs cirrus_laguna_drv.o (was: Re: User problems with the DLLoader)

[Derek Fawcus]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:05:22PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> I would vastly prefer to drag the drivers into line with the rough standard, but
> I suppose we could do both?  Maybe someone could shed some light into why these
> drivers don't have _drv appended.

Well I created them when I split the Alpine code from the Laguna code.  They don't
have _drv.o because they are sub modules,  they are loaded by the main cirrus
driver (which I believe is named cirrus_drv.o).

As to their existance - political.  I actually wanted to create a alpine_drv.o and
a laguna_drv.o but at the time was told one _must_ have the top level "cirrus"
driver known as cirrus.  So I complied.

I'd rather they were split to be two drivers build - "laguna" and "alpine".

Or possibly "cirrus" and "cirrus_laguna" as the laguna is the one odd member of
the cirrus family of chips,  having a completely different programming interface.

DF