[alsa-devel] [PATCH v3 09/11] ASoC: fsl: remove the fatal error checking on codec-handle
shawn.guo at linaro.org
Thu Mar 15 15:21:18 CET 2012
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 01:37:06PM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> The PowerPC MPC8610 has two SSIs, and I have a hacked up board that has
> both connected to two CS4270s. This is how I tested multiple SSI support
> in my driver.
> Since my driver supports any number of SSIs, I expect any changes to it to
> continue that support.
I think it can still easily get supported with the binding like below.
compatible = "fsl,imx51-babbage-sgtl5000",
model = "imx51-babbage-sgtl5000";
ssi-controller = <&ssi1, &ssi2>;
audio-codec = <&sgtl5000_1, &sgtl5000_2>;
mux-int-port = <1>;
mux-ext-port = <3>;
The only difference will be both ssi-controller and audio-codec become
an array of phandles.
> I admit I may have been too hasty in giving that ACK, because I did not
> take the time to study the binding. I figured that the new binding was
> superior to what I came up with years ago.
> Now that I've studied the binding, I no longer believe that. I don't
> understand what's so wonderful about the new binding that my driver has to
> support it *and* the old binding. I think it would be easier if i.MX uses
> the original binding.
I do not think it would be easier for imx. Looking at the imx-sgtl5000
binding, you will find we have audmux port configuration encoded there.
How would you suggest to get that fit into the PowerPC binding?
> Even if the new binding is "better", I do not see how it's SOOOOO much
> better that my driver has to support it. The drawback in supporting both
> is the added complexity.
If you insist on that the driver should only support single binding,
I would rather change mpc8610_hpcd and p1022_ds to use the new binding.
> But the driver already does this! No one's asking you to add the code to
> perform these tasks. Just use the existing code.
Again, what's your suggestion to support audmux configuration with the
More information about the Alsa-devel