[PATCH v3 2/5] ASoC: tda998x: add a codec driver for the TDA998x
broonie at kernel.org
Tue Feb 4 14:40:18 EST 2014
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 07:59:21PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
> > You shouldn't be representing this as a separate node in the DT unless
> > there really is a distinct and reusable IP, otherwise you're putting
> > Linux implementation details in there. Describe the hardware, not the
> > implemementation.
> If there is no 'compatible' node for the tda998x CODEC in the DT, the
> simple-card is not usable, simply because you want the CODEC DAIs to be
> defined by 'phandle + index' instead of by DAI name.
This is a bit circular, though - it's only happening because you decided
to push everything onto a subnode in the DT. If you just work with the
existing device this is no different to any other device.
> > > I don't understand. The tda CODEC can only be used with the TDA998x I2C
> > > driver. It might have been included in the tda998x source as well.
> > You shouldn't have the default settings there at all, that's not the
> > normal idiom for MFDs. I'd also not expect to have to build the CODEC
> > driver just because I built the DRM component.
> As the tda998x handles audio in HDMI, it would be a pity if you should
> connect an other cable to your screen.
My screen doesn't have any speakers anyway :P (I'm writing this on a
computer with the monitor connected via HDMI). Besides, this is more
about build coverage stuff than anything else.
> So, as I understand from your remarks, the CODEC should be included in
> the tda998x driver, and, then, as the simple-card cannot be used, there
> should be a Cubox specific audio card driver for the (kirkwood audio +
> tda998x HDMI + S/PDIF) set. Am I right?
No, it shouldn't be.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the linux-arm-kernel