Hi,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:48:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:10:26PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Motorola CPCAP is a PMIC with audio functionality, that can be
> > found on Motorola Droid 4 and probably a few other phones from
> > Motorola's Droid series.
>
> Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
> subsystem. This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
> patches. Look at what existing commits in the area you're changing are
> doing and make sure your subject lines visually resemble what they're
> doing.
Right, I did not notice, that ASoC does not follow general
"dt-bindings: <subsys>:" DT bindings subject style. How
do Rob and Mark find them?
> > +&cpcap {
> > + audio-codec {
> > + compatible = "motorola,cpcap-audio-codec";
> > + vdd-supply = <&vaudio>;
> > + };
> > +};
>
> I'd expect supplies (especially generically named supplies like this) to
> be looked up at the chip level - aside from my general concerns with MFD
> subnodes like this in the case of supplies it's especially problematic
> as it makes it harder to do the generic chip level hookup in the DT and
> it precludes other parts of the chip using the same supply (which seems
> especially likely with a generically named supply like this).
I don't follow you here. Why can't other parts of the chip use the
same supply? Regarding the other point: Handling the audio-codec
differently than all other sub-modules of cpcap seems much more
problematic to me and the codec is basically the last one
missing:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/motorola-cpcap-mapphone.dtsi
-- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
