From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] ASoC: fsl: Add S/PDIF CPU DAI driver Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:17:18 +0200 Message-ID: <8770601.066pCcRnTh@flatron> References: <2805432.jMVhHxhr1m@flatron> <20130817145316.GT26614@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com (mail-bk0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AFB2607BB for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:17:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 6so949934bkj.5 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 08:17:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130817145316.GT26614@pengutronix.de> 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: Sascha Hauer Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, lars@metafoo.de, mturquette@linaro.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, swarren@wwwdotorg.org, festevam@gmail.com, Nicolin Chen , timur@tabi.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, broonie@kernel.org, p.zabel@pengutronix.de, galak@codeaurora.org, shawn.guo@linaro.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Saturday 17 of August 2013 16:53:16 Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 02:28:04PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > > > Also I would make this option required. Use a dummy clock for > > > > > mux > > > > > inputs that are grounded for a specific SoC. > > > > > > > > Some clocks are not from CCM and we haven't defined in > > > > imx6q-clk.txt, > > > > so in most cases we can't provide a phandle for them, eg: > > > > spdif_ext. > > > > I think it's a bit hard to force it to be 'required'. An > > > > 'optional' > > > > looks more flexible to me and a default one is ensured even if > > > > it's > > > > missing. > > > > > > <&clks 0> is the dummy clock. This can be used for all input clocks > > > not > > > defined by the SoC. > > > > Where does this assumption come from? Is it documented anywhere? > > This is how all i.MX clock bindings currently are. See > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx*-clock.txt OK, thanks. I guess we need some discussion on dummy clocks vs skipped clocks. I think we want some consistency on this, don't we? If we really need a dummy clock, then we might also want a generic way to specify it. Best regards, Tomasz