Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:51:38 +0000 | From | Andrew Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] ASoC: dwc: Add documentation for I2S DT |
| |
On 12/22/14 14:26, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 04:18:09PM +0000, Andrew Jackson wrote: > >> Add documentation for Designware I2S hardware block. The block requires >> two clocks (one for audio sampling, the other for APB) and DMA channels >> for receive and transmit. > > You should generally include the binding before the code to parse it, > both because the binding is required in order to tell if the code is > doing the right thing and also because people will often not even look > at code with a missing binding.
Fair enough: I'll reorder the (remaining) patches.
>> + - clocks : Pairs of phandle and specifier referencing the controller's clocks. >> + The controller expects two clocks, the clock used for the APB interface and >> + the clock used as the sampling rate reference clock sample. >> + - clock-names : "apb_plck" for the clock to the APB interface, "i2sclk" for the sample >> + rate reference clock. > > This is a name based lookup of clocks but the code doesn't use > apb_pclk at all; it needs to or the binding needs to say that apb_pclk > must be the first listed clock (which would not be good).
I can remove apb_pclk: I was modelling the device tree entry on various PLxxx examples (c.f. amba-pl011) which also reference an AMBA clock but don't use it. (The effect being to document what clock the block is driven by.)
>> + soc_i2s: i2s@7ff90000 { >> + compatible = "snps,designware-i2s"; >> + reg = <0x0 0x7ff90000 0x0 0x1000>; >> + clocks = <&scpi_i2sclk 0>, <&soc_refclk100mhz>; >> + clock-names = "i2sclk", "apb_pclk"; >> + #sound-dai-cells = <0>; >> + dmas = <&dma0 5>; >> + dma-names = "tx"; >> + }; > > This omits a lot of configurability that is in platform data and > replaces it by reading back the parameters from the hardware. If this > is a viable approach to that configuration you should do this for both > platform data and device tree rather than only device tree. The point > with keeping platform data is that it's not good to make the device DT > only, improving the usability of platform data in a way that happens to > also make the DT case easier is totally fine. If we can determine how > the IP is configured from the hardware that's both less work and more > robust no matter how the device is instantiated. >
I agree. I didn't do it like this originally because it wasn't clear whether or not the original driver catered for some custom IP and I wanted to ensure that I didn't break the existing driver. I'm happy to switch both platform data and device tree to reading their parameters from the hardware.
Andrew
| |