On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:43:17PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
In other words, ...
clock1 = <0, bb8000> clock2 = <1, 653230> clock23 = <0, ab2372>
Yes, something like that would cover it. I'm not sure what is idiomatic for the device tree.
and of course the ordering matters.
Ok, you got me there. But then, isn't this just another example where the device tree is incapable of describing a complex configuration, and so we need a platform driver?
Yes, you could certainly do that - as you say, any device tree based configuration would be optional so it's not a blocker if some things aren't supported.
It'd be nice to have some idea of how to handle it should someone want to do it but I wouldn't think it's essential. The most common case where specific ordering is required is that a PLL will need to have all its inputs configured before the PLL is activated so it'd probably cover a large proportion of cases to do that last.
Indeed. Providing the device tree stuff doesn't get set in stone I'm not sure we need to nail this down perfectly for ASoC v1 when we're running into trouble working around it.
I definitely agree with that. I'll be the first to admit that this driver, much like ASoC V1, is a prototype.
Yes, from an ASoC point of view the driver looks good as it is. The only discussion is about the PowerPC probing stuff.