Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2 v3] ASoC: simple-card: add Device Tree support

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 01/30/2013 05:49 PM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:

>>> +- simple-audio,system-clock-frequency	: system clock rate
>>> +- simple-audio,frame-master
>>> +- simple-audio,bitclock-master
>>
>> Aren't those a property of the CPU<->CODEC link, hence the clock
>> frequency is identical,
> 
> This clock connection/frequency depends on SoC/board.
> There is a case where system clock is not connected to both cpu/codec.
> 
> system clock    bit/frame
> --------[codec]---------> [cpu]


In that diagram, it looks like the CPU-side simply doesn't receive a
system clock at all, so it's recovering any clock by multiplying up the
bit clock.

That seems like a different case to the two ends both receiving a system
clock but the frequency being different.

How does the CPU DAI driver know (based on the binding) whether it
receives a system clock or not, or whether it should extract a clock
from the bit clock? Perhaps the HW design of the CPU DAI determines
this, so the binding doesn't need to specify it?

>> and the two "master" properties are the inverse
>> of each-other in between CPU and CODEC. Specifying these right in the
>> top-level node seems simpler.
> 
> If I put these in top-level node, it needs
> 
>   simple-audio,xxx,frame-master;
>   simple-audio,xxx,bitclock-master;     xxx = cpu / codec
> 
> This is same things ?
> 
> Of course I can do like
> 
>   simple-audio,frame-master = "cpu";
>   simple-audio,bitclock-master = "cpu";
> 
> But, this style can't use snd_soc_of_parse_daifmt()

I think the usual style for this would be a Boolean property indicating
whether the CPU DAI is the master or slave, and same for bitclock.
That'd be something like:

simple-audio,cpu-frame-master;
simple-audio,cpu-bitclock-master;

and those two properties would be present (for true) or missing (for false).

>>> +Required subnode properties:
>>> +- simple-audio,dev		: phandle for CPU/CODEC
>>> +
>>> +Optional subnode properties:
>>> +
>>> +- simple-audio,dai-name			: simple-audio CPU/CODEC DAI name
>>
>> OK, I see those two are CPU-/CODEC-specific. However, you could easily
>> just have different property names for the two.
>>
>> I assume you didn't like my idea of not putting the DAI names into the
>> DT, but using extra arguments after the phandles instead? Doing so would
>> be more alike most existing DT bindings.
> 
> I'm confusing about this.
> What does this "different property name" mean ?

Instead of:

nodea {
    simple-audio,dev = ...;
}
nodeb {
    simple-audio,dev = ...;
}

You'd have:

simple-audio,cpu-dai = ...;
simple-audio,codec = ...;