On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:09:59 +0000
Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:23:42AM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
>
> > But now, I am wondering again about these `empty`codecs:
> > - in a DT context, should we continue to add / modify such codecs?
> > - what do you think about my generic DT codec? (indeed, I would do a new
> > version according to the previous remarks)
>
> We still want to be able to have users just name the CODEC on their
> board rather than have to type in all the details from the datasheet,
> if we're going to try to amalgamate the drivers it should still let
> people do that.
OK. But it seems to me that the codec is not tied to the board, but
rather to the audio connector / transmitter.
In the case of the tda998x HDMI transmitter, either i2s or s/pdif may
be used, thanks to the actual codecs 'hdmi' and 'spdif tx'. But they
don't work the same way: the 'hdmi' codec handles both playback and
record, and recording is disabled by program in the sound device,
while the 'spdif tx' codec is selected by the codec-dai-name
("dit-hifi" - it is "dir-hifi" for recording). It would be nice if
these codecs would have the same behaviour...
--
Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
