From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:16:28 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v6 2/8] ASoC: atmel: machine driver for at91sam9x5-wm8731
 boards
In-Reply-To: <20130730225845.GB9858@sirena.org.uk>
References: <1375180329-4860-1-git-send-email-richard.genoud@gmail.com>
 <1375180329-4860-3-git-send-email-richard.genoud@gmail.com>
 <51F7FBA8.6080400@wwwdotorg.org> <20130730204511.GX9858@sirena.org.uk>
 <51F8302D.406@wwwdotorg.org> <20130730225845.GB9858@sirena.org.uk>
Message-ID: <51F98CBC.6000302@wwwdotorg.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 07/30/2013 04:58 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:29:17PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/30/2013 02:45 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> You really shouldn't do this, it's not accomplishing much.
> 
>> What it accomplishes is not polluting the CODEC's binding with a
>> set of strings that must always be supported since DT is an ABI.
>> The strings are isolated into the specific audio complex binding,
>> which might possibly become deprecated and replaced with
>> something better and more generic.
> 
> You seem to be assuming that the strings are a bad thing.  I'm not
> sure that this is the case modulo the tooling issues...

I do tend to think that using strings is pretty evil...

> We could start adding the integers right now - something like:
> 
> The X CODEC has the following numbered input and output pins:
> 
> 1. HPOUTL 2. HPOUTR ...
> 
> (see datasheet for details), a header file is provided with 
> constants X_PIN_foo for convenience.
> 
> would work with either approach to identifying the pins or if
> we're being less verbose and just reference the header file for
> the definitions that becomes something like:
> 
> The X CODEC has input and output pins listed with numerical 
> identifiers in the form the X_PIN_foo defined in the X.h header 
> file where foo is the name of the pin.
> 
> (that's not good boilerplate wording but you get my drift) which
> still ends up defining a set of known strings for pins.
> 
> In fact now that I think about this why don't we just go ahead and
> do all this, starting by putting the numbers into the bindings for
> the CODECs since that's the simplest thing and doesn't involve
> writing code? I even have several boards on my desk that run DT
> ASoC...

I'm certainly fine with that compromise.