On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 07:59:21PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
You shouldn't be representing this as a separate node in the DT unless there really is a distinct and reusable IP, otherwise you're putting Linux implementation details in there. Describe the hardware, not the implemementation.
If there is no 'compatible' node for the tda998x CODEC in the DT, the simple-card is not usable, simply because you want the CODEC DAIs to be defined by 'phandle + index' instead of by DAI name.
This is a bit circular, though - it's only happening because you decided to push everything onto a subnode in the DT. If you just work with the existing device this is no different to any other device.
I don't understand. The tda CODEC can only be used with the TDA998x I2C driver. It might have been included in the tda998x source as well.
You shouldn't have the default settings there at all, that's not the normal idiom for MFDs. I'd also not expect to have to build the CODEC driver just because I built the DRM component.
As the tda998x handles audio in HDMI, it would be a pity if you should connect an other cable to your screen.
My screen doesn't have any speakers anyway :P (I'm writing this on a computer with the monitor connected via HDMI). Besides, this is more about build coverage stuff than anything else.
So, as I understand from your remarks, the CODEC should be included in the tda998x driver, and, then, as the simple-card cannot be used, there should be a Cubox specific audio card driver for the (kirkwood audio + tda998x HDMI + S/PDIF) set. Am I right?
No, it shouldn't be.