Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:02:27 +0200 | From | Sebastian Hesselbarth <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Dove: Add the audio devices in DT |
| |
On 08/29/13 19:12, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:12:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>>> Also, we'll need to distinguish between the different audio controllers >>>> on a single SoC, i.e. i2s0 and i2s1. I suggest checking the (phys) reg >>>> base passed. > >>> Why is this required - ideally this would have been mentioned in some of >>> the previous reviews... > >> I've mentioned the differences between the blocks to you repeatedly in >> our massive thread, including that some contain the block with different > > You have described some additional features which will require > additional driver support. I would expect that the device tree bindings > for these features would be added as the features are added and the DTS > files updated, for example by listing additional compatible strings if > that was the binding update, as is the normal practice. Obviously any > hardware which is not compatible with the current binding should not be > being registered using the current binding. > > It is not clear from the above comment by Sebastian if he is referring > to the same set of hardware differences or something new - doing things > based on device address is highly unusual, it sounds like something to > do with the integration into the SoC rather than to do with the IP. >
Mark,
it is referring the same differences Russell already mentioned. But I already came to the conclusion, that we don't need the information in the binding. For example, if you use that controller on Dove and you hook it up for SPDIF-in (which it hasn't), than I consider this a DT bug. No need to double-check that in the driver. From that p-o-v, please just let the current binding as is.
Thomas Petazzoni mentioned earlier, that the _usual_ procedure to name the compatibles is to pick the SoC that the IP appeared in first. But I am also fine with "marvell,mvebu-audio" and adding compatibles for dove or kirkwood _if_ we will ever need them.
Please, just stop fighting over this again - it is not getting anything any further.
Sebastian
| |