Re: [PATCH] ASoC:pcm512x: Make PLL lock output selectable via device tree.

[Howard Mitchell <hm@hmbedded.co.uk>]

On 23/03/15 11:00, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Howard Mitchell wrote:
>> 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)?
> Strongly agreed that we should fix this before it is published (I assumed
> that is was included in 3.19, it felt so long ago that Mark merged it...). My
> preference would be to remove the pll-lock things entirely though. Assuming
> you don't need it for your board of course, but I doubt it from your description.
> I used it to make sure I had understood the chip correctly, that's all.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
I'd be happy to remove it entirely. I only used it as you did as a debug 
tool. Let's see what Mark thinks.....

- Howard