Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arm64: dts: amlogic: Add Amlogic S4 Audio

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 19/03/2025 09:46, Jiebing Chen wrote:
>>> +     tdmif_b: audio-controller-1 {
>>> +             compatible = "amlogic,axg-tdm-iface";
>>> +             #sound-dai-cells = <0>;
>>> +             sound-name-prefix = "TDM_B";
>>> +             clocks = <&clkc_audio AUD_CLKID_MST_A_SCLK>,
>>> +                      <&clkc_audio AUD_CLKID_MST_B_LRCLK>,
>>> +                      <&clkc_audio AUD_CLKID_MST_B_MCLK>;
>>> +             clock-names = "sclk", "lrclk","mclk";
>>> +     };
>>> +
>>> +     tdmif_c: audio-controller-2 {
>>> +             compatible = "amlogic,axg-tdm-iface";
>>> +             #sound-dai-cells = <0>;
>>> +             sound-name-prefix = "TDM_C";
>>> +             clocks = <&clkc_audio AUD_CLKID_MST_C_SCLK>,
>>> +                      <&clkc_audio AUD_CLKID_MST_C_LRCLK>,
>>> +                      <&clkc_audio AUD_CLKID_MST_C_MCLK>;
>>> +             clock-names = "sclk", "lrclk","mclk";
>>> +     };
>>> +
>>>        timer {
>>>                compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
>>>                interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>>> @@ -101,7 +135,6 @@ apb4: bus@fe000000 {
>>>                        #address-cells = <2>;
>>>                        #size-cells = <2>;
>>>                        ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x0 0x480000>;
>>> -
>> Why? What is happening in this patch - why are you changing so many
>> other pieces?
> 
> Hi, Krzysztof
> 
> for last versions ,it it not match the amlogic,axg-tdm-iface.yaml

It is not what is happening here. Read replies and patches again.

> 
> so we must be change the order, otherwise a warning will be thrown，we 
> copy the dts config from merged dts
> 
> the old order not meet the dt-binding rule, Another change, we only add 
> the audio clock reg
> 
> + compatible = "amlogic,s4-audio-clkc"; + reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0xd8>,
> 
> add <0x0 0xE80 0x0 0x10>;
> 
> We have not made any changes to the rest

How is this even remotely related to my comment?

It's still a NAK for reasons stated later which you decided to ignore.


Best regards,
Krzysztof