From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFE982C0123 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:52:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:50:43 +0800 From: Nicolin Chen To: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] ASoC: fsl: Add S/PDIF machine driver Message-ID: <20130819095042.GA11402@MrMyself> References: <20130819092458.GE3719@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20130819092458.GE3719@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "lars@metafoo.de" , "swarren@wwwdotorg.org" , "festevam@gmail.com" , "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" , "timur@tabi.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "tomasz.figa@gmail.com" , "broonie@kernel.org" , "p.zabel@pengutronix.de" , "R65777@freescale.com" , "shawn.guo@linaro.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > Is this used semantically, or is it a completely arbitrary string? In > either case I don't see why the compatible string doesn't give the > driver enough to have a sensible value. > > I'm confused as to why we need this. The phrase "user-visible" in a > device description seems very odd. The string would be in the ALSA device list: ALSA device list: #0: imx-spdif I think it can be a sort of arbitrary as long as users know which this device exactly is when they catch the name by 'aplay -l' or 'arecord -l' The phrase "user-visible" is being used in many current docs, I don't dare to change it unless a sage gives me a suggestion. > > + > > + - spdif-controller : The phandle of the i.MX S/PDIF controller > > + > > + > > +Optional properties: > > + > > + - spdif-transmitter : The phandle of the spdif-transmitter dummy codec > > + > > + - spdif-receiver : The phandle of the spdif-receiver dummy codec > > + > > +* Note: At least one of these two properties should be set in the DT binding. > > Are all four units (comlpex,controller,transmitter,receiver) really > separate blocks? At least they are separate drivers as I mentioned in the commit comments. Thank you, Nicolin