Sat, 12 Apr 2014 12:42:18 +0200 от Alexander Stein <alexanders83@xxxxxx>:
> On Saturday 12 April 2014, 14:31:28 wrote Alexander Shiyan:
> > Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:08:26 +0200 от Alexander Stein <alexanders83@xxxxxx>:
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexanders83@xxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > .../devicetree/bindings/sound/atmel_ac97c.txt | 20 +++++++++
> > > sound/atmel/ac97c.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > 2 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/atmel_ac97c.txt
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/atmel_ac97c.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/atmel_ac97c.txt
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..9839403
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/atmel_ac97c.txt
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > > +* Atmel AC97 controller
> > > +
> > > +Required properties:
> > > + - compatible: "atmel,atmel_ac97c"
> > > + - reg: Address and length of the register set for the device
> > > + - interrupts: Should contain AC97 interrupt
> > > + - atmel,reset-pin: GPIO for resetting the codec
> >
> > Why standard "gpios" property cannot be used here?
>
> I guess they can. I have no experience defining a devicetree binding, so I just stuck to the platformdata member name.
> If this is the recommended way, I'll gladly change that.
Another question is whether this property should refer to the controller,
as it is clear that it refers to the codec ....
---
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
