[alsa-devel] [PATCH v7 1/2] ASoC: fsl: Add S/PDIF CPU DAI driver

Nicolin Chen b42378 at freescale.com
Mon Aug 19 12:13:04 CEST 2013

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:54:33AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I see, so 'Compatible list, must contains "fsl,imx35-spdif"' would be okay?
> While that needs to be mentioned, other values which might be present
> (e.g. "fsl,imx6q-spdif") must be mentioned, or we can't rely on them
> if we want to use them in future from drivers to provide additional
> information (and thus they're useless).

Well, imx6q-spdif is identical to the imx35-spdif. So I think the
'must contains 35' would be enough for the current case. If any
future modification happens to the list, I can update this doc later.

> > 
> > > > +  - interrupts : Contains spdif interrupt.
> > > 
> > > Is that the only interrupt the device generates?
> > 
> > Yes, how could I improve this description?
> It's probably not possible to make it much clearar to be honest,
> "Contains the sole interrupt generated by the device" might be a little
> overkill.

Then I keep it no-change :)

> > > > +       "rxtx<0-7>"     Clock source list for tx and rx clock.
> > > > +                       This clock list should be identical to
> > > > +                       the source list connecting to the spdif
> > > > +                       clock mux in "SPDIF Transceiver Clock
> > > > +                       Diagram" of SoC reference manual. It
> > > > +                       can also be referred to TxClk_Source
> > > > +                       bit of register SPDIF_STC.

> > The list is also identical to the TxClk_Source bit value list of
> > register SPDIF_STC.
> What I don't understand is how the value of the SPDIF_STC register
> within the spdif IP block can describe the necessary details of clocks
> coming from an external clock provider.
> What do the TxClk_Source bits represent? The configuration of the clock
> inputs on the spdif IP block, or the outputs on some clock provider? Are
> they writeable, or configured at integration time? If the clock provider
> were replaced with another arbitrary clock provider, what would they
> represent?

Actually there's a clock mux for TxClk and it's connecting with 8 clock 
sources. So the TxClk_Source bit show the connection between its value
with the correspond source on the clock mux:

TxClk_Source	000 XTAL clk input
		001 CCM spdif0_clk_root input
		010 asrc_clk input
		011 spdif_extclk input, from pads
		100 esai_hckt input
		101 frequency divided ipg_clk input
		110 mlb_clk input
		111 mlb phy clk input

> > I guess it's better to drop the 'imx6q-spdif' here?
> That depends:
> * If the two IP blocks are identical, only the "imx35-spdif" name is
>   necessary, and we can forget about "fsl,imx6q-spdif".
> * If "fsl,imx6q-spdif" is a strict superset of "fsl,imx35-spdif", having
>   both names documented and in a compatible list for a "fsl,imx6q-spdif"
>   device makes sense.
> * If "fsl,imx6q-spdif" is a variation of "fsl,imx35-spdif", and the
>   "fsl,imx6q-spdif" cannot always be treated identically to a
>   "fsl,imx35-spdif", then it makes sense to have separate compatible
>   strings, with a device being listed as either "fsl,imx6q-spdif" or
>   "fsl,imx35-spdif".
> I don't know enough about the hardware to make that judgement call.

Thank you for explaining! I will choose A, because they are internally
identical except their external clock sources.

Best regards,

More information about the Alsa-devel mailing list