[alsa-devel] [PATCH v3 09/11] ASoC: fsl: remove the fatal error checking on codec-handle

[Timur Tabi]

Mark Brown wrote:

> All of which is exactly the same as for any other device and essentially
> irrelevant to how we define the bindings for the cards.

So using imx-audio-sgtl5000.txt as an example, you're saying that if I
have two SSIs, I should do this in my device tree:

sound1 {
	compatible = "fsl,imx51-babbage-sgtl5000",
		     "fsl,imx-audio-sgtl5000";
	model = "imx51-babbage-sgtl5000";
	ssi-controller = <&ssi1>;
	audio-codec = <&sgtl5000_1>;
	mux-int-port = <1>;
	mux-ext-port = <3>;
};

sound2 {
	compatible = "fsl,imx51-babbage-sgtl5000",
		     "fsl,imx-audio-sgtl5000";
	model = "imx51-babbage-sgtl5000";
	ssi-controller = <&ssi2>;
	audio-codec = <&sgtl5000_2>;
	mux-int-port = <1>;
	mux-ext-port = <3>;
};

>>> The biggest improvement is that the SoC binding knows nothing about the
>>> card binding at all, cards are completely separate and are free to
>>> define any binding they choose using any number of on-SoC and off-SoC
>>> devices.
> 
>> Ok, I don't understand that at all.
> 
> Do you have some questions about the above?  What is it that you find
> unclear?   

What's the difference between an "SoC binding" and a "card binding"?

> We've been through this *repeatedly*, including in the message you're
> replying to, and we're still going back to square one every time you
> decide to start talking about device tree again.  This is frustrating
> in the extreme.

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but so am I.  I still don't understand why
the binding that I invented for the SSI driver isn't good enough for i.MX.
 The binding and the code was documented and approved a long time ago.
Why can't we keep the same binding on i.MX, to keep the code simpler?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale