Hi Lars,
On 11-04-2016 10:33, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 04/11/2016 11:27 AM, Jose Abreu wrote:
>> Hi Lars,
>>
>>
>> On 09-04-2016 16:02, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2016 06:12 PM, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> +- adi,enable-audio: If set the ADV7511 driver will register a codec interface
>>>>>> + into ALSA SoC.
>>>>> This is not a description of the hardware.
>>>> Is this okay: "adi,enable-audio: Set this boolean parameter if ADV7511
>>>> transmitter routes audio signals" ?
>>> I don't think we need this property. There is no problem with registering
>>> the audio part unconditionally. As long as there is no connection we wont
>>> create a sound card that is exposed to userspace.
>>>
>> This change was suggested by Laurent Pinchart and was introduced in v3. Quoting
>> Laurent:
>> "The idea is that enabling support for ADV7511 audio in the kernel isn't coupled
>> with whether the system includes audio support. It would be confusing, and would
>> also waste resources, to create a Linux sound device when no sound channel is
>> routed on the board."
> I wouldn't care too much about this at this point, the extra amount of
> resources required for registering the CODEC (but not the sound card) is
> just a few bytes (sizeof(struct snd_soc_codec)).
>
> Nevertheless what we should do is describe the hardware and from this
> information infer whether there is a audio connection or not and if there is
> none we might skip registering the CODEC. In my opinion this hardware
> description should be modeled using of-graph, having a connection between
> the SoC side and the adv7511 SPDIF or I2S port.
>
You mean something like this:
sound_playback: sound_playback {
compatible = "simple-audio-card";
[...]
simple-audio-card,format = "i2s";
[...]
}
adv7511 at xx {
compatible = "adi,adv7511";
[...]
ports {
[...]
/* Audio Output */
port at x {
reg = <x>;
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&sound_playback>;
}
}
}
}
?
Best regards,
Jose Miguel Abreu
