From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:20:00 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Daniel Mack Message-ID: <20130808132000.GD6427@sirena.org.uk> References: <1375889649-14638-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1375889649-14638-14-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <20130807164039.GM6427@sirena.org.uk> <5203676F.6090708@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Jm4NjHtWXfjOIegD" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5203676F.6090708@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/20] ASoC: pxa: pxa-ssp: add DT bindings Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, s.neumann@raumfeld.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, haojian.zhuang@linaro.org, cxie4@marvell.com, lars@metafoo.de, nico@linaro.org, vinod.koul@intel.com, marek.vasut@gmail.com, ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com, rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, samuel@sortiz.org, arnd@arndb.de, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, eric.y.miao@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, g.liakhovetski@gmx.de, sachin.kamat@linaro.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, djbw@fb.com, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Jm4NjHtWXfjOIegD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 11:39:59AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > Then, we should also allocate the DMA channel from the upstream device > and pass it down to the DAI. But then again, the pxa-pcm-lib needs some > rework, as it's currently in charge of obtaining and releasing the channel. > I wanted to postpone that issue until the rest of the series has settled > and limit changes to the bare minimum for now. Does that sound feasible? Yup, the big problem here is the whole DT as ABI thing - what happens in the code isn't so important but the DT is supposed to be stable. Or we could decide that this is one of the cases that's unstable in which case we should probably flag it up in the DT binding document if nothing else. --Jm4NjHtWXfjOIegD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSA5r9AAoJELSic+t+oim9TY0QAJEC6KT9kFEO2/hPL88fIE2z NozOSwnc8Aa/QKP052g0Lt30lkSWJjml2AnX35f0RRrvgsvzm01RVIyBoRFI+m7q yUsJD9SkcpXcad1myC1BIGIIjFATvD4l6EA/ddxm/Jzr6Nc+3hUruirtetITOVws FpD1GByDzWmZ+R88+BCypGXPwAIueWOPuQfCBUgeMuEppvMCjR2oUiBsmY05/MgI 2MRdSYyFR9AhTTpAqH3jp3qsFxQWtVxAlh5LIUObMEbkstAfBT24+CFVcCwGuWmF U1mxehBMAAKFfeZgoHt6gUSBZZiY4/Txdn1G6mCnzNOezI9OnMHXpFVUvt+C91fa Mkc1ESJQP+sEvhpHI3EAamjMDs0Ljax448DT6pTjvjHb2XT2gZUqfmoo8SUpO4Ze Mt1L4rF1iBCFZiS/3vVgr228Op8oQK+998uGMQJW1v3EG3WwaytvGp/KlH1uiDyi xVntT3vk1TuMOb3wZeAmEFjH6ms7bkhac9xcUs2XtaAfDIjv1XxdIry/PY+tNIiK r1q+S33F05HCo1i06Pc0aoXV5gi0YLQ/Fg9kmkaSVDpvBJqRESiQkcAwLnW57oLN ppZyAa6yvVfZBWJNe3UndN19ubjrtEosm6qpXukv1Qdd8LWRR9aUbdqeXLi4s1Us +BcamCwg262/gX36NzhW =Q2lB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Jm4NjHtWXfjOIegD-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:20:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 13/20] ASoC: pxa: pxa-ssp: add DT bindings In-Reply-To: <5203676F.6090708@gmail.com> References: <1375889649-14638-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1375889649-14638-14-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <20130807164039.GM6427@sirena.org.uk> <5203676F.6090708@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130808132000.GD6427@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 11:39:59AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > Then, we should also allocate the DMA channel from the upstream device > and pass it down to the DAI. But then again, the pxa-pcm-lib needs some > rework, as it's currently in charge of obtaining and releasing the channel. > I wanted to postpone that issue until the rest of the series has settled > and limit changes to the bare minimum for now. Does that sound feasible? Yup, the big problem here is the whole DT as ABI thing - what happens in the code isn't so important but the DT is supposed to be stable. Or we could decide that this is one of the cases that's unstable in which case we should probably flag it up in the DT binding document if nothing else. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: