Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] ASoc: kirkwood: add DT support to the mvebu audiosubsystem

[Sebastian Hesselbarth]

On 08/09/13 11:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 10:23:50AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> > On 08/08/2013 01:22 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
>
> > > +i2s1: audio-controller@b4000 {
> > > +	compatible = "mrvl,mvebu-audio";
> > > +	reg = <0xb4000 0x2210>;
> > > +	interrupts = <21>, <22>;
> > > +	clocks = <&gate_clk 13>;
> > > +	clock-names = "internal";
> > > +};
>
> > Also we will need some phandle reference to the audio codec here. As
> > this property is ongoing work in ASoC core, I suggest we wait for it
> > and propose a binding afterwards.
>
> No, as discussed this should be in the binding for the audio subsystem
> not in the binding for an individual component in that subsystem.

Mark,

I do understand there may be SoCs requiring sophisticated extra audio
nodes, but Marvell SoCs don't. I prefer having a single node for the
i2s controller *and* exploit the audio subsystem properties from that.

For Marvell audio, we only need a single node for all three ASoC
drivers. No other subsystem _requires_ you to have extra nodes for
it's needs. If you can provide interrupts, just have an interrupt-
controller property. If you can provide clocks, you can link to that
very node - no virtual device node required. Even for media they
do not insist on a virtual node but they do have generic properties
you can exploit.

If you insist on creating a virtual sound card node just because
ASoC wants it that way - okay, your call. But I don't see any value
in that.

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/