From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: add RT5639 CODEC driver Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:58:17 -0600 Message-ID: <53325059.4020000@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1395627397-6580-1-git-send-email-oder_chiou@realtek.com> <20140325133017.GY2269@sirena.org.uk> <5331A1D6.2070109@wwwdotorg.org> <20140325165738.GZ2269@sirena.org.uk> <7EB0DE829A537248AF2ED30C97D126943580E4@RTITMBSV03.realtek.com.tw> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org (avon.wwwdotorg.org [70.85.31.133]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719852650B3 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:58:21 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <7EB0DE829A537248AF2ED30C97D126943580E4@RTITMBSV03.realtek.com.tw> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Oder Chiou , Mark Brown Cc: Bard Liao , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "lgirdwood@gmail.com" , Flove List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 03/25/2014 08:57 PM, Oder Chiou wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@kernel.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:58 AM >> To: Stephen Warren >> Cc: Oder Chiou; Bard Liao; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; lgirdwood@gmail.com; >> Flove >> Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: add RT5639 CODEC driver >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:33:42AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 03/25/2014 07:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> >>>> Looking at the level of code similiarity between this and the rt5640 >>>> driver I can't help but think that these should be supported from a >>>> single driver - a few quick spot checks of the register map suggests >>>> that there's at least some overlap. There will need to be some >>>> device specific handling but it looks like there's more shared than not shared. >>>> What are the issues that prevent the code being shared, there may be >>>> something I've missed? >> >>> FWIW, I was informed internally (although this certainly isn't >>> normative) that RT5639 is RT5640 plus a DSP, and otherwise compatible. >>> Related, I have a board that has a RT5639 and I'm running the RT5640 >>> driver on it for at least a simple use-case, without issue. > > The RT5639 is a simplified version of RT5640. There was only a pair of DACs and there was no MONO out. > The RT5639 and RT5640 didn't have the DSP function, and the RT5642 was the RT5640 plus a DSP. > In our side, the Tegra4 was broken, and it also was EOL in your company. > So, do you have the code base of Tegra5 which can use for verifying the upsteam driver? Don't you still have the Dalmore (Tegra114/Tegra4) board that you used last time? While our internal/downstream SW stack deprecates chip SW at a rather annoying pace, upstream Linux still supports everything all the way back to Tegra2/Tegra20, including Dalmore specifically. That has RT5640.