[alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 1/2] ASoC: fsl: Add S/PDIF CPU DAI driver
s.hauer at pengutronix.de
Fri Aug 16 12:11:51 CEST 2013
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 05:53:58PM +0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:56:32AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > "tx<0-8>" Optional Tx clock source for spdif playback.
> > > If absent, will use core clock.
> > > The index from 0 to 8 is identical
> > > to the clock source list described
> > > in TxClk_Source bit of register STC.
> > > Multiple clock source are allowed
> > > for this tx clock source. The driver
> > > will select one source from them for
> > > each supported sample rate according
> > > to the clock rates of these provided
> > > clock sources.
> > You mean tx<0-7>
> Yes. Thank you.
> > Also I would make this option required. Use a dummy clock for mux inputs
> > that are grounded for a specific SoC.
> Some clocks are not from CCM and we haven't defined in imx6q-clk.txt,
> so in most cases we can't provide a phandle for them, eg: spdif_ext.
> I think it's a bit hard to force it to be 'required'. An 'optional'
> looks more flexible to me and a default one is ensured even if it's
<&clks 0> is the dummy clock. This can be used for all input clocks not
defined by the SoC.
spdif_ext would be a fixed clock on boards which provide it, but wiring
this up would be the job of the board maintainer.
> > Again, describe the input clocks *to* *the* *S/PDIF* *core* in the
> > devicetree. Nothing more, nothing less. We've already been at the point
> > where we realized that half of the above clocks only describe the
> > 'PDLL locked' condition. Also the tx clocks are from what I see identical
> > to the rx clocks. The following are the clocks:
> > clock-names: "core", "rxtx<0-7>" Required. The S/PDIF core has a core
> > clock and 8 clocks which are muxed internally to provide input/output
> > sample clocks.
> I know the reason why you suggest to combine two into 'rxtx<0-7>'
> is because the clock mux is defined so. And the previous suggestion
> 'the option required' is also because of it. But actually the rxclk
> itself, can be not only routed from the clock mux but also derived
> from DPLL of SPDIF Rx BLOCK as well. So, IMHO, it's more likely to
> be a fact that rxclk actually has 9 clock source, 8 from mux and
> 1 from DPLL. But why we here have to exclude it?
Because this is configuration, not hardware description.
> WELL anyway, I know my opinion might not be concerned so much. So
> I would like to follow the suggestion as an expediency because I
> still wish this patch could be finally applied and merged into
> mainline :(
> But I still don't get why we need to be so obsessed to make this
> impenetrable rule of devicetree that we here have to sacrifice
> something we could have reasonably done.
Look, it's really simple. Define the binding in a way that describes the
hardware. Then use some sensible default in the driver for which clock
to use. This doesn't have to cover all possible usecases, it only has
to work. This is all that is necessary to get this driver mainline and
will make most users happy. Then, later, someone might come along who
needs more fine grained control over the clocks, but this guy is then
able to justify *why* more control is needed.
This is not about getting a full featured driver into mainline. Get
a basic driver into mainline and improve it later. You'll make it
easier for us all.
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
More information about the Alsa-devel