From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sangbeom Kim Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ASoC: Samsung: Updates for v3.8 Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:28 +0900 Message-ID: <000301cdc9e9$4e781d30$eb685790$@com> References: <000001cdc95c$c1d7ec20$4587c460$@com> <20121123145945.GU4529@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout4.samsung.com (mailout4.samsung.com [203.254.224.34]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3BC26509D for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 03:13:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from epcpsbgm1.samsung.com (epcpsbgm1 [203.254.230.26]) by mailout4.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MDY005ZKZIJCGA0@mailout4.samsung.com> for alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:34 +0900 (KST) Received: from DOSBKIM7302 ([12.23.120.118]) by mmp2.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 (7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPA id <0MDY0066EZILVUB0@mmp2.samsung.com> for alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:34 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: <20121123145945.GU4529@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Content-language: ko List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: 'Mark Brown' Cc: sachin.kamat@linaro.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, 'Sangsu Park' , 'Padmavathi Venna' List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi, Thanks for review. > There's some problems with this binding. The main one is the gpios > property the format of which isn't specified at all. All of above gpio property is i2s. That is, + gpios = <&gpz 0 2 0 0>, -> SCLK + <&gpz 1 2 0 0>, -> CDCLK + <&gpz 2 2 0 0>, -> LRCK + <&gpz 3 2 0 0>, -> SDI + <&gpz 4 2 0 0>, -> SDO[0] + <&gpz 5 2 0 0>, -> SDO[1] + <&gpz 6 2 0 0>; -> SDO[2] Do you want like a below one? +sclk-gpios = <&gpz 0 2 0 0>, +cdclk-gpios = <&gpz 1 2 0 0>, ... > The requirement for an alias is also very odd, where does that come from? I don't know that Which one is odd. Please let me know. > Some of the code also looks very peculiar, like the fact that it's > generating a clock name i2s_opclk%d rather than hard coding the clock, > the physical clock would normally be resolved based on the struct > device. This is to handle all of Samsung SOCs i2c clock mux. Please look at below clk_lookup table In case of 6410, clk_lookup + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.0", "i2s_opclk0", &clk_i2s0), + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.0", "i2s_opclk1", &clk_audio_bus0.clk), + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.1", "i2s_opclk0", &clk_i2s1), + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.1", "i2s_opclk1", &clk_audio_bus1.clk), +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_S3C6410 + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.2", "i2s_opclk0", &clk_i2s2), + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.2", "i2s_opclk1", &clk_audio_bus2.clk), In case of exynos5, clk_lookup + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.0", "i2s_opclk0", &exynos5_clk_sclk_i2s.clk), + CLKDEV_INIT("samsung-i2s.0", "i2s_opclk1", &exynos5_clk_i2s_bus.clk), We try to handle clock source of i2s by only i2s_opclk0 and i2s_opclk1. Each SOCs have different clock source. Is this wrong approach? Thanks, Sangbeom.