From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ASoC: dwc: Add devicetree support for Designware I2S Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:42:13 +0000 Message-ID: <54802C75.9060609@arm.com> References: <547F3CAC.9050105@arm.com> <20141203182351.GF7712@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.140]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950222606D3 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:42:14 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20141203182351.GF7712@sirena.org.uk> 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: Mark Brown Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Liam Girdwood , Takashi Iwai , Liviu Dudau , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rajeev Kumar , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 12/03/14 18:23, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 04:39:08PM +0000, Andrew Jackson wrote: > >> Convert to driver to use either platform_data or device-tree for configuration >> of the device. When using device-tree, the I2S block's configuration is read >> from the relevant registers: this reduces the amount of information required in >> the device tree. > > This really needs to be split into two or more patches, there's a whole > bunch of refactoring to support this DT stuff which should be separate > from the DT addition itself. Right now it's hard to tell what each > individual bit of the code is supposed to be doing, the patch is far too > large and doing far too many individual things. I will have look at how it might be split. The majority of the new code is in reading and processing the device's configuration: I didn't want to change the platform data handling to do that because some of the comments in the driver suggested that there were ST specific changes to the Designware IP. I wasn't in a position to know whether, if I changed the configuration reading, the driver would still function correctly on the SPEAR platform. >> + if (dev->using_pd) { >> + ret = dev->i2s_clk_cfg(config); >> + if (ret < 0) { >> + dev_err(dev->dev, "runtime audio clk config fail\n"); >> + return ret; >> + } >> + } else { >> + u32 bitclk; > > Having this whole separate path for using platform data feels icky, we > don't want to have completely separate flows like this. Checking for > the callbacks being there is probably fine but just having totally > separate code paths is a bit icky. I wasn't very happy either but making the test explicit seemed reasonable at the time. I'll change the code to test for the presence of the callback instead. Andrew