From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Graph fixes for using multiple endpoints per port Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:19:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20181212001950.GX6707@atomide.com> References: <20181211020557.61783-1-tony@atomide.com> <8736r4bvf3.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <20181211045220.GI6707@atomide.com> <871s6obqkb.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <20181211053536.GJ6707@atomide.com> <87wooga9an.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <20181211141649.GL6707@atomide.com> <87ftv33bpg.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ftv33bpg.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kuninori Morimoto Cc: Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Sebastian Reichel , Jarkko Nikula , Peter Ujfalusi List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org * Kuninori Morimoto [181211 23:16]: > > Hi Tony > > > The issue I have with that it does not then follow the binding doc :) > > > > See this part in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt: > > > > "If a single port is connected to more than one remote device, an > > 'endpoint' child node must be provided for each link." > > > > Isn't the I2C TDM case the same as "single port connecected to > > more than one remote device" rather than multiple ports? > > > > To me it seems we're currently only handling the multiple ports > > case, and not multiple endpoints for a port. Other than fixing > > that, things should work just as earlier with my two patches. > > That is unless I accidentally broke something. > > > > So just trying to correct the binding usage. Or am I missing > > something? > > I'm not 100% sure your "I2C TDM case", but you can check > multi-endpoint sample on "Example: Multi DAI with DPCM" below. > "pcm3168a" is using multi-endpoint. > Does this help you ? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10712877/ Hmm, so do you have multiple separate ports at the "&sound" node hardware? If so then yeah multiple ports make sense. But if you only a single physical (I2S?) port at the "&sound" node hardware, then IMO you should only have one port and multiple endpoints there according to the graph.txt binding doc. In my McBSP case there is only a single physical I2S port that can be TDM split into timeslots. Regards, Tony