On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:50:43AM +0100, Nicolin Chen wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Is this used semantically, or is it a completely arbitrary string? In either case I don't see why the compatible string doesn't give the driver enough to have a sensible value.
I'm confused as to why we need this. The phrase "user-visible" in a device description seems very odd.
The string would be in the ALSA device list: ALSA device list: #0: imx-spdif
I think it can be a sort of arbitrary as long as users know which this device exactly is when they catch the name by 'aplay -l' or 'arecord -l'
The phrase "user-visible" is being used in many current docs, I don't dare to change it unless a sage gives me a suggestion.
I can see that there is entrenched usage, but this really seems to be embedding Linux-specific implementation details into the dt. I don't see why the driver cannot select a sensible name, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Mark, is there any reason we need to handle the user-visible name of the device this way?
- spdif-controller : The phandle of the i.MX S/PDIF controller
+Optional properties:
- spdif-transmitter : The phandle of the spdif-transmitter dummy codec
- spdif-receiver : The phandle of the spdif-receiver dummy codec
+* Note: At least one of these two properties should be set in the DT binding.
Are all four units (comlpex,controller,transmitter,receiver) really separate blocks?
At least they are separate drivers as I mentioned in the commit comments.
I'm not sure that the boundary of Linux drivers should necessarily determine the way we carve up the description of IP blocks, though presumably it's a pretty sensible way of carving it up or we wouldn't have done it.
Is there any public documentation on the i.MX S/PDIF hardware block(s)?
Thanks, Mark.