From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] ASoC: fsl: remove the fatal error checking on codec-handle Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:00:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4F612319.50302@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> <20120314122723.GC3133@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.144]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBB610414F for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:55 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20120314122723.GC3133@opensource.wolfsonmicro.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: Mark Brown Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Shawn Guo , Sascha Hauer , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Mark Brown wrote: > All of which is exactly the same as for any other device and essentially > irrelevant to how we define the bindings for the cards. So using imx-audio-sgtl5000.txt as an example, you're saying that if I have two SSIs, I should do this in my device tree: sound1 { compatible = "fsl,imx51-babbage-sgtl5000", "fsl,imx-audio-sgtl5000"; model = "imx51-babbage-sgtl5000"; ssi-controller = <&ssi1>; audio-codec = <&sgtl5000_1>; mux-int-port = <1>; mux-ext-port = <3>; }; sound2 { compatible = "fsl,imx51-babbage-sgtl5000", "fsl,imx-audio-sgtl5000"; model = "imx51-babbage-sgtl5000"; ssi-controller = <&ssi2>; audio-codec = <&sgtl5000_2>; mux-int-port = <1>; mux-ext-port = <3>; }; >>> 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? What's the difference between an "SoC binding" and a "card binding"? > 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. I'm sorry you're frustrated, but so am I. I still don't understand why the binding that I invented for the SSI driver isn't good enough for i.MX. The binding and the code was documented and approved a long time ago. Why can't we keep the same binding on i.MX, to keep the code simpler? -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b04825@freescale.com (Timur Tabi) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:00:41 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v3 09/11] ASoC: fsl: remove the fatal error checking on codec-handle In-Reply-To: <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> <20120314122723.GC3133@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <4F612319.50302@freescale.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Mark Brown wrote: > All of which is exactly the same as for any other device and essentially > irrelevant to how we define the bindings for the cards. So using imx-audio-sgtl5000.txt as an example, you're saying that if I have two SSIs, I should do this in my device tree: sound1 { compatible = "fsl,imx51-babbage-sgtl5000", "fsl,imx-audio-sgtl5000"; model = "imx51-babbage-sgtl5000"; ssi-controller = <&ssi1>; audio-codec = <&sgtl5000_1>; mux-int-port = <1>; mux-ext-port = <3>; }; sound2 { compatible = "fsl,imx51-babbage-sgtl5000", "fsl,imx-audio-sgtl5000"; model = "imx51-babbage-sgtl5000"; ssi-controller = <&ssi2>; audio-codec = <&sgtl5000_2>; mux-int-port = <1>; mux-ext-port = <3>; }; >>> 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? What's the difference between an "SoC binding" and a "card binding"? > 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. I'm sorry you're frustrated, but so am I. I still don't understand why the binding that I invented for the SSI driver isn't good enough for i.MX. The binding and the code was documented and approved a long time ago. Why can't we keep the same binding on i.MX, to keep the code simpler? -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale