[PATCH V5 2/2] ASoC: SAMSUNG: Add DT support for i2s

[Padma Venkat]

Hi,

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at samsung.com> wrote:
> Padma Venkat wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Mark Brown
>> <broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:24:14PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:12:53 +0530, Padmavathi Venna
>> <padma.v at samsung.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > +- compatible : "samsung,samsung-i2s"
>> >
>> >> Isn't that kind of redundant?  :-)
>> >
>> >> The format of the compatible strings should be "<vendor>,<part-
>> number>-i2s".
>> >> Please be specific about the part number that you're doing the binding
>> >> for. For example; use "samsung,exynos4210-i2s" instead of
>> "samsung,exynos-i2s".
>> >
>> > There are actually versioned IPs here (where the versions are used
>> > publically in a few places) but it's not clearly documented which is
>> > which.  It would be reasonable to use the IP versions here I think.
>>
>> Samsung has three i2s drivers one for s3c24xx, one for s3c2412 and one
>> for rest of the platforms. The above mentioned other platforms has
>> Version 3/4/5 of i2s controllers. This dt binding is for for the i2s
>
> Where is the version defined such as 3, 4, 5? So, what is the
> "sound/soc/Samsung/s3c-i2s-v2.[ch]"?

Versions 3, 4, 5 are defined in dev-audio.c file of corresponding platforms.
s3c-i2s-v2 is used in s3c2412 platform.

>
>> driver that has support for Version 3/4/5 of i2s controller. So
>> "samsung,i2s-v5" is okay as compatible name? Please suggest me.
>>
> I agree with using version here but we need some consensus about that.
>
> - Kukjin
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Thanks
Padma