From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] ASoC: fsl: remove the fatal error checking on codec-handle Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:27:23 +0000 Message-ID: <20120314122723.GC3133@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1331225990-27308-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1331225990-27308-10-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <4F591B8D.8090705@freescale.com> <20120309013216.GH2499@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <4F5FD706.8040209@freescale.com> <20120313234638.GY3177@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F6008FA.3040805@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5270888464335217568==" Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C151041DD for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:27:26 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <4F6008FA.3040805@freescale.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Tabi Timur-B04825 Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Shawn Guo , Sascha Hauer , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org --===============5270888464335217568== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hYooF8G/hrfVAmum" Content-Disposition: inline --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:57:00AM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > With this card those would just be separate CODECs. This is a binding > > for a simple card. > But that is insufficient for the SSI driver, which is expected to handle= =20 > multiple SSIs. If you're going to document a binding for the SSI driver,= =20 > then you need to document how to handle multiple SSIs. For almost all SoC audio ports this works in exactly the same way it works for multiple instances of any other device - you do a binding that covers a single device and then you bind multiple instances of that device in the system each of which need know nothing about any other instances of the IP. =20 If your SoC has IP which provides more than one port in a single IP block then the driver for that IP would need to register multiple DAIs =66rom a single binding which is again exactly the same thing as you'd do with any other IP block that behaved similarly. All of which is exactly the same as for any other device and essentially irrelevant to how we define the bindings for the cards. > > The biggest improvement is that the SoC binding knows nothing about the > > card binding at all, cards are completely separate and are free to > > define any binding they choose using any number of on-SoC and off-SoC > > devices. > Ok, I don't understand that at all. Do you have some questions about the above? What is it that you find unclear? =20 > I also don't understand why you insist on perverting my driver to support= =20 > two incompatible bindings, especially since I still haven't heard an=20 > explanation as to what's wrong with the binding that I defined. We've been through this *repeatedly*, including in the message you're replying to, and we're still going back to square one every time you decide to start talking about device tree again. This is frustrating in the extreme. --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPYI6jAAoJEBus8iNuMP3da3QP/1k70BJRCTStJ4dXBaQ0Jw9/ ymQFS7koLIREUIb6e5XpbN0ubUBNA2cHY5Nlk7EJ0IemVQY3jNEtOdgz0i5xTthv Y1jXFvG9KqyK9WTGbaF8l77Tz0DiC/QlBac54gGQAIbTqzvIToLpDi3wA2Dd2UMc o5H2C/qlnx+Z4wEqkQzAW7Qi02c3qIzpgt1Ma05cOZrKVt7kST3kHCUBG91x1Lus OVMvvusNUGsFPsWAt+sFH1pl80HMUnVRd1fqUTKBNAA52HJqhHQT6WnJwL9r9fdt KTZXDnc8Fj0W+1wzMRN27DwTFnI32wMzgaTGzAGDrVtsAg/JQVErVnbGPeIj1tka WXzs6dZfixj9O+XRST0WCZSB8GxhGhEj6cEfSr6fFZ6UUVzvAFwSAMyN3ZLqOAGr CeFjIAhTgUeIJtrj7OFyRzeht4klNW3zlHO4OgKTc7VK+/2GDaxt/sUrHflsGjoo /Mj0Dxqovk+f92sU3zMRvR6KM15Kb7EWYkosUU/BW5VyKqj2NVHYWsvKLBJ7QhIE Ma+o4SkWgYFhIO8FA1QOL+YicpRAlnRA5ZNH6a3ro9t/2bA0ZeOBv/XWmVdaqnRl K7QLf6kqJmlbfoVh0ioN4c8LMqH1Xjn59zL/+onAYOhBUCBYKgo0vQBzbM2ynOXE c4fns4zfBvgrN5T7OTyB =O0JB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum-- --===============5270888464335217568== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============5270888464335217568==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:27:23 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v3 09/11] ASoC: fsl: remove the fatal error checking on codec-handle In-Reply-To: <4F6008FA.3040805@freescale.com> References: <1331225990-27308-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1331225990-27308-10-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <4F591B8D.8090705@freescale.com> <20120309013216.GH2499@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <4F5FD706.8040209@freescale.com> <20120313234638.GY3177@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F6008FA.3040805@freescale.com> Message-ID: <20120314122723.GC3133@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:57:00AM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > With this card those would just be separate CODECs. This is a binding > > for a simple card. > But that is insufficient for the SSI driver, which is expected to handle > multiple SSIs. If you're going to document a binding for the SSI driver, > then you need to document how to handle multiple SSIs. For almost all SoC audio ports this works in exactly the same way it works for multiple instances of any other device - you do a binding that covers a single device and then you bind multiple instances of that device in the system each of which need know nothing about any other instances of the IP. If your SoC has IP which provides more than one port in a single IP block then the driver for that IP would need to register multiple DAIs from a single binding which is again exactly the same thing as you'd do with any other IP block that behaved similarly. All of which is exactly the same as for any other device and essentially irrelevant to how we define the bindings for the cards. > > The biggest improvement is that the SoC binding knows nothing about the > > card binding at all, cards are completely separate and are free to > > define any binding they choose using any number of on-SoC and off-SoC > > devices. > Ok, I don't understand that at all. Do you have some questions about the above? What is it that you find unclear? > I also don't understand why you insist on perverting my driver to support > two incompatible bindings, especially since I still haven't heard an > explanation as to what's wrong with the binding that I defined. We've been through this *repeatedly*, including in the message you're replying to, and we're still going back to square one every time you decide to start talking about device tree again. This is frustrating in the extreme. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: