On 08/09/2012 01:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:18:50PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >> On 08/08/2012 05:49 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> That makes sense if the GPIO is actively driven, open drain should be >>> better here, but it's still a generic thing which it'd be nice to >>> extract. > >> To cover all of this in a generic way is not that straight forward IMHO. > > The sequence is just: > > 1. Enable mutes (at _PRE time) > 2. Do whatever the device needs > 3. Disable the mutes (at _POST time) > > I'm not sure there's any reason for you not to use the internal mute > even if the external mute is present but if there is that's the only > thing that's weird here. If there's no reason not to do it it just goes > into step 2 and then it's fine, even if there is you can make it > conditional in step 2. Not sure, but it should not cause issues. The PIN is multiplexed between GPIO6/PWM0/MUTE functionality. For that matter probably I could just don't care about flags here and configure the extmute (the internal one) all the time. Not sure, it has been a long time I have dealt with the twl4030... >> Sure I could do this: >> hs_extmute: if only this is set we shall use the chip built in functionality >> hs_extmute_gpio: if this is set we use the extmute feature but with external >> GPIO. > >> But both need to be documented and supported. > > Is there any actual case where an external mute is supplied via a > mechanism other than a GPIO, and if there is would it not either need > its own DT property or already need to interact with the driver from > code, making the DT property redundant? Not with my knowledge. The only board using it is the zoom2 upstream. I know other boards (not in upstream) which either uses the internal mute or GPIO. > My thinking here is that the > flag should be redundant because we already need to specify how we do > the mute, what I'd expect is that we activate the external mute > functionality as a result of being given another way of doing it so we > don't need to provide a flag. I perfectly understand your point. However how would you imagine this in the core? We should have something similar to DAPM_SUPPLY which we can attach to the widget which needs this sort of mute, but how big change we would need in the core to do this I'm not sure. I can take a look at this, but I would do it as a follow up series. -- Péter -- 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
