[alsa-devel] [PATCH V5 2/2] ASoC: SAMSUNG: Add DT support for i2s
padma.kvr at gmail.com
Wed Dec 26 11:51:58 CET 2012
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Padma Venkat <padma.kvr at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at samsung.com> wrote:
>> Padma Venkat wrote:
>>> 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-
>>> >> Please be specific about the part number that you're doing the binding
>>> >> for. For example; use "samsung,exynos4210-i2s" instead of
>>> > 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
> 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.
Any suggestions on i2s compatible name or "samsung,i2s-v5" is okay?
>> - 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
More information about the Alsa-devel