From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Dove: Add the audio devices in DT
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:02:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521F8CB3.5060407@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130829171210.GM10783@sirena.org.uk>
On 08/29/13 19:12, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:12:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>
>>>> Also, we'll need to distinguish between the different audio controllers
>>>> on a single SoC, i.e. i2s0 and i2s1. I suggest checking the (phys) reg
>>>> base passed.
>
>>> Why is this required - ideally this would have been mentioned in some of
>>> the previous reviews...
>
>> I've mentioned the differences between the blocks to you repeatedly in
>> our massive thread, including that some contain the block with different
>
> You have described some additional features which will require
> additional driver support. I would expect that the device tree bindings
> for these features would be added as the features are added and the DTS
> files updated, for example by listing additional compatible strings if
> that was the binding update, as is the normal practice. Obviously any
> hardware which is not compatible with the current binding should not be
> being registered using the current binding.
>
> It is not clear from the above comment by Sebastian if he is referring
> to the same set of hardware differences or something new - doing things
> based on device address is highly unusual, it sounds like something to
> do with the integration into the SoC rather than to do with the IP.
>
Mark,
it is referring the same differences Russell already mentioned. But I
already came to the conclusion, that we don't need the information in
the binding. For example, if you use that controller on Dove and you
hook it up for SPDIF-in (which it hasn't), than I consider this a
DT bug. No need to double-check that in the driver. From that p-o-v,
please just let the current binding as is.
Thomas Petazzoni mentioned earlier, that the _usual_ procedure to
name the compatibles is to pick the SoC that the IP appeared in first.
But I am also fine with "marvell,mvebu-audio" and adding compatibles
for dove or kirkwood _if_ we will ever need them.
Please, just stop fighting over this again - it is not getting anything
any further.
Sebastian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@free.fr>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
liam.r.girdwood@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Dove: Add the audio devices in DT
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:02:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521F8CB3.5060407@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130829171210.GM10783@sirena.org.uk>
On 08/29/13 19:12, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:12:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>
>>>> Also, we'll need to distinguish between the different audio controllers
>>>> on a single SoC, i.e. i2s0 and i2s1. I suggest checking the (phys) reg
>>>> base passed.
>
>>> Why is this required - ideally this would have been mentioned in some of
>>> the previous reviews...
>
>> I've mentioned the differences between the blocks to you repeatedly in
>> our massive thread, including that some contain the block with different
>
> You have described some additional features which will require
> additional driver support. I would expect that the device tree bindings
> for these features would be added as the features are added and the DTS
> files updated, for example by listing additional compatible strings if
> that was the binding update, as is the normal practice. Obviously any
> hardware which is not compatible with the current binding should not be
> being registered using the current binding.
>
> It is not clear from the above comment by Sebastian if he is referring
> to the same set of hardware differences or something new - doing things
> based on device address is highly unusual, it sounds like something to
> do with the integration into the SoC rather than to do with the IP.
>
Mark,
it is referring the same differences Russell already mentioned. But I
already came to the conclusion, that we don't need the information in
the binding. For example, if you use that controller on Dove and you
hook it up for SPDIF-in (which it hasn't), than I consider this a
DT bug. No need to double-check that in the driver. From that p-o-v,
please just let the current binding as is.
Thomas Petazzoni mentioned earlier, that the _usual_ procedure to
name the compatibles is to pick the SoC that the IP appeared in first.
But I am also fine with "marvell,mvebu-audio" and adding compatibles
for dove or kirkwood _if_ we will ever need them.
Please, just stop fighting over this again - it is not getting anything
any further.
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-29 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-28 9:34 [PATCH 1/2] ARM: Dove: Add the audio devices in DT Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-28 9:34 ` Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-28 10:13 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 10:13 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 10:13 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 10:19 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 10:19 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 10:19 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 10:26 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 10:26 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 10:26 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 11:15 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 11:15 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 11:44 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 11:44 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 11:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 11:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 12:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-28 12:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-28 12:29 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 12:29 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 12:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-28 12:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-28 12:51 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 12:51 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-28 13:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-28 13:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-28 12:16 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-28 12:16 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-29 10:07 ` Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-29 10:07 ` Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-29 10:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-29 10:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-29 11:01 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-29 11:01 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-30 15:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-30 15:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-29 9:46 ` Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-29 9:46 ` Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-29 16:12 ` Mark Brown
2013-08-29 16:12 ` Mark Brown
2013-08-29 16:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-29 16:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-29 17:12 ` Mark Brown
2013-08-29 17:12 ` Mark Brown
2013-08-29 18:02 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth [this message]
2013-08-29 18:02 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-08-29 18:20 ` Mark Brown
2013-08-29 18:20 ` Mark Brown
2013-08-29 18:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-29 18:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-08-28 19:49 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-08-28 19:49 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-08-29 9:38 ` Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-29 9:38 ` Jean-Francois Moine
2013-08-29 14:13 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-08-29 14:13 ` Sergei Shtylyov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=521F8CB3.5060407@gmail.com \
--to=sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.