On 01/31/2013 10:11 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:09:37AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 01/30/2013 06:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
I suggested this because it seemed more legible to repeat the properties by having a named structure for each property rather than by repeating them all with slightly different names.
So the only need to repeat them at all was if the two DAIs needed different values for some of the properties rather than being identical (e.g. signal polarity) or precise inversions (e.g. which end is master), right?
There's more attributes that we might want to configure on the devices than just the actual DAI link. Clocks for example.
Sure, but this binding is *simple*-audio, right. If the intent is to create some more general/all-encompassing binding structure, I'd want to think about it and review it in a different way.