* Sebastian Reichel sebastian.reichel@collabora.co.uk [170727 02:02]:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:48:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:10:26PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
Motorola CPCAP is a PMIC with audio functionality, that can be found on Motorola Droid 4 and probably a few other phones from Motorola's Droid series.
Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the subsystem. This makes it easier for people to identify relevant patches. Look at what existing commits in the area you're changing are doing and make sure your subject lines visually resemble what they're doing.
Right, I did not notice, that ASoC does not follow general "dt-bindings: <subsys>:" DT bindings subject style. How do Rob and Mark find them?
+&cpcap {
- audio-codec {
compatible = "motorola,cpcap-audio-codec";vdd-supply = <&vaudio>;- };
+};
I'd expect supplies (especially generically named supplies like this) to be looked up at the chip level - aside from my general concerns with MFD subnodes like this in the case of supplies it's especially problematic as it makes it harder to do the generic chip level hookup in the DT and it precludes other parts of the chip using the same supply (which seems especially likely with a generically named supply like this).
I don't follow you here. Why can't other parts of the chip use the same supply? Regarding the other point: Handling the audio-codec differently than all other sub-modules of cpcap seems much more problematic to me and the codec is basically the last one missing:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch...
Mark, any comments on the above? I'm just wondering if the related dts changes are safe for me to pick.
Regards,
Tony