From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752221AbbCWJqr (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 05:46:47 -0400 Received: from avasout06.plus.net ([212.159.14.18]:60893 "EHLO avasout06.plus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752055AbbCWJqp (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 05:46:45 -0400 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=c40lQHNl c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=oGXdIM4CHFLRg3SRSiSbjg==:117 a=oGXdIM4CHFLRg3SRSiSbjg==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=KcJ3CBSANbIA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=eIRpCU4CAAAA:8 a=rXJhf85HNSnr6zm7TIoA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-AUTH: oscars+hm@:2500 Message-ID: <550FE05F.6070204@hmbedded.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:43:59 +0000 From: Howard Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: peda@axentia.se, tiwai@suse.de, lgirdwood@gmail.com, perex@perex.cz, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC:pcm512x: Make PLL lock output selectable via device tree. References: <1426886563-10936-1-git-send-email-hm@hmbedded.co.uk> <20150322162409.GG6643@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20150322162409.GG6643@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22/03/15 16:24, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 09:22:43PM +0000, Howard Mitchell wrote: > >> + if (pcm512x->pll_lock) { >> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "pll-lock", &val) >= 0) { >> + if (val > 6) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Invalid pll-lock\n"); >> + ret = -EINVAL; >> + goto err_clk; >> + } >> + pcm512x->pll_lock = val; >> + } > This breaks existing boards which rely on GPIO 4 being set as the lock > output. This is very unfortunate since it's a silly thing for the > driver to default to but nontheless we should really continue to support > them - at a guess Peter's board is relying on this, and even if it isn't > someone else's might. I take your point, but the reason I pushed this patch was that I wanted to use GPIO4 for pll-out and unfortunately because the pll-lock configuration is after the pll-out configuration it stomps on it. If I modify the patch to provide a default for pll-lock I will then be obliged to specify pll-lock on another GPIO. The pcm5122 has limited IO so being forced to have a GPIO for pll-lock seems wrong to me. A future user of the device may well decide to use the GPIOs for other purposes and therefore not want a pll-lock signal at all. Surely we should allow for that possibility? Given that Peter has indicated that he'd be happy with this solution and that this code hasn't reached a published kernel would it be reasonable to go ahead with my current patch (happy to clean up the indent issues that Peter pointed out of course)?