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. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
