On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 07:59:21PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > You shouldn't be representing this as a separate node in the DT unless > > there really is a distinct and reusable IP, otherwise you're putting > > Linux implementation details in there. Describe the hardware, not the > > implemementation. > If there is no 'compatible' node for the tda998x CODEC in the DT, the > simple-card is not usable, simply because you want the CODEC DAIs to be > defined by 'phandle + index' instead of by DAI name. This is a bit circular, though - it's only happening because you decided to push everything onto a subnode in the DT. If you just work with the existing device this is no different to any other device. > > > I don't understand. The tda CODEC can only be used with the TDA998x I2C > > > driver. It might have been included in the tda998x source as well. > > You shouldn't have the default settings there at all, that's not the > > normal idiom for MFDs. I'd also not expect to have to build the CODEC > > driver just because I built the DRM component. > As the tda998x handles audio in HDMI, it would be a pity if you should > connect an other cable to your screen. My screen doesn't have any speakers anyway :P (I'm writing this on a computer with the monitor connected via HDMI). Besides, this is more about build coverage stuff than anything else. > So, as I understand from your remarks, the CODEC should be included in > the tda998x driver, and, then, as the simple-card cannot be used, there > should be a Cubox specific audio card driver for the (kirkwood audio + > tda998x HDMI + S/PDIF) set. Am I right? No, it shouldn't be.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
