Hi Geert > > I can agree to have both basic/extend register > > if driver need to switch its behavior. > > But this case, there is nothing to do on driver side. > > In other words, SoC always need to use extend > > register if it has. > > I don't know why datasheet is indicating both area. > > Maybe it is because for Gen3 all-in ? I'm not sure. > > > > Anyway, Simon, can you agree about it ? > > Having both basic/extend register is just noise for driver. > > I can follow your rationale of only describing the extended register set, > if available. Thank you > However: > 1) The DT bindings should state clearly that the AUDMAPP register > block should point to the extended register set, if available, Yes, indeed. I re-used your sample patch, and posted. > 2) Can the driver distinguish between an old DTB describing the basic > register set, and a new DTB describing the extended register set? > I.e. will the driver avoid using busif4-7 when using an old DTB > describing the basic register set, to maintain backwards compatibility? The situation which need to use busif4-7 is TDM 16ch Split mode. It is very rare case. And it is not yet supported on driver. This means, there is zero chance to access to busif4-7 under old DTB. Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
