From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:33:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 08/10] ASoC: ux500_pcm: Differentiate between pdata and DT initialisation In-Reply-To: <20131119184829.GF2674@sirena.org.uk> References: <1384859269-19801-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1384859269-19801-9-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20131119184829.GF2674@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20131119193341.GC19953@lee--X1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:07:47AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > require slightly different flags to inform the core that we 'are' > > booting with DT. > > Is there some situation when we would want to say we're booting from DT > when we aren't? Just wondering about the quotes. The quotes do 'not' mean anything special. :) > > +static const struct snd_dmaengine_pcm_config ux500_dmaengine_of_pcm_config = { > > + .pcm_hardware = &ux500_pcm_hw, > > + .prealloc_buffer_size = 128 * 1024, > > You shouldn't need to set this explicitly, the generic code should be > able to pick a number for you - if you do need this number please > explain why the number was chosen in the comments (or fix the core to > guess better). At the minute the core just makes up a number too but at > least then it's a consistent random number between platforms. > > Can you also get away without the pcm_hardware - the core should also > have support for discovering this by querying the DMA controller? Despite the '+'s, I'm not actually adding these parameters, I'm duplicating the pdata version and removing the stuff I 'know' that's not required. I don't know what happens when/if these two parameters are removed. I can add this to my TODO when I rip out platform data support, which will happen when this stuff lands. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog