On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 01:19:15AM +0000, James Calligeros wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 1:50 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Can't you align this with the other property you added? Or extend the > > existing TDM properties we have. > > I don't think either option makes sense given the functionality. This chip > behaves differently to TAS2764, and instead of using a bitmask to determine > which slots to ignore, we only get a single bit to tell the chip whether we want > it to fill or pull down *all* inactive slots. The property being a u32 mask > therefore does not make sense here. If there's a single bit control, then that just means there's only 1 valid value for a mask in that case. Or maybe a mask is overkill. What's the usecase for fill or pulldown *some* inactive slots? > Building the logic off the existing generic TDM slot properties would alter > behaviour of existing implementations where zero-fill and pulldown may not be > required or even wanted. This may continue to be the case going forward so I'd > rather make it an explicit opt-in rather than some unconditional thing we try to > turn on heuristically. Existing implementations would not have the new/extra properties and would continue to operate as before. Or those drivers could simply ignore the properties. > I gave some thought to flipping these bits if a TDM slot mask is passed to the > driver, however it can still be the case that we don't want both zero-fill *and* > pulldown active at the same time, or as above some implementations may want > neither, so we still need to be able to specify them individually. This just feels like something common because any TDM interface may need to control this. It's not really a property of the chip, but requirement of the TDM interface. Rob
