[PATCH V5 2/2] ASoC: SAMSUNG: Add DT support for i2s

[kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim)]

Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
Re-sending due to e-mail client problem :(

> Padma Venkat wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Mark Brown
> > <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:24:14PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:12:53 +0530, Padmavathi Venna
> > <padma.v@samsung.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > +- compatible : "samsung,samsung-i2s"
> > >
> > >> Isn't that kind of redundant?  :-)
> > >
> > >> The format of the compatible strings should be "<vendor>,<part-
> > number>-i2s".
> > >> Please be specific about the part number that you're doing the
> > >> binding for. For example; use "samsung,exynos4210-i2s" instead of
> > "samsung,exynos-i2s".
> > >
> > > There are actually versioned IPs here (where the versions are used
> > > publically in a few places) but it's not clearly documented which is
> > > which.  It would be reasonable to use the IP versions here I think.
> >
> > Samsung has three i2s drivers one for s3c24xx, one for s3c2412 and one
> > for rest of the platforms. The above mentioned other platforms has
> > Version 3/4/5 of i2s controllers. This dt binding is for for the i2s
> 
> Where is the version defined such as 3, 4, 5? So, what is the
> "sound/soc/Samsung/s3c-i2s-v2.[ch]"?
> 
> > driver that has support for Version 3/4/5 of i2s controller. So
> > "samsung,i2s-v5" is okay as compatible name? Please suggest me.
> >
> I agree with using version here but we need some consensus about that.
> 
> - Kukjin