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. 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. 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. Regards, James
