From: Alexander Sverdlin <subaparts@yandex.ru>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Dimitris Papastamos <dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
"alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@visionengravers.com>,
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDB93xx: Add support for CS4271 CODEC on EDB93xx boards
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:26:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1296653211.1504.40.camel@r60e> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110202125327.GO12743@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Dear Mark, Dear Hartley,
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:53 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Now Hartley suggested to move GPIO handling to platform code. This makes
> > sense, as SPI-enable will be managed automatically, and reset is also
> > more related to platform (depending on schematics, inversion and so on).
>
> What is the advantage of this? The GPIO management has to be done
> somewhere and replicating it in every platform seems like a complete
> waste of time. Given that one of the GPIOs is a power control it'll
> also mean that it's not possible to manage the power dynamically at
> runtime.
>
I think we can leave reset management in CODEC (as it will be almost the
same for all platforms), leave enable pin management in CODEC unused,
but attach enable GPIO to spi_board_info in platform to enable other SPI
devices on bus.
Hartley, in this case we cannot use existing cs4271_platform_data and
have to leave long if-else statemens as is. Would it be ok?
Best regards,
Alexander.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: subaparts@yandex.ru (Alexander Sverdlin)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] EDB93xx: Add support for CS4271 CODEC on EDB93xx boards
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:26:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1296653211.1504.40.camel@r60e> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110202125327.GO12743@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Dear Mark, Dear Hartley,
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:53 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Now Hartley suggested to move GPIO handling to platform code. This makes
> > sense, as SPI-enable will be managed automatically, and reset is also
> > more related to platform (depending on schematics, inversion and so on).
>
> What is the advantage of this? The GPIO management has to be done
> somewhere and replicating it in every platform seems like a complete
> waste of time. Given that one of the GPIOs is a power control it'll
> also mean that it's not possible to manage the power dynamically at
> runtime.
>
I think we can leave reset management in CODEC (as it will be almost the
same for all platforms), leave enable pin management in CODEC unused,
but attach enable GPIO to spi_board_info in platform to enable other SPI
devices on bus.
Hartley, in this case we cannot use existing cs4271_platform_data and
have to leave long if-else statemens as is. Would it be ok?
Best regards,
Alexander.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-02 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-01 23:40 [PATCH] EDB93xx: Add support for CS4271 CODEC on EDB93xx boards Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-01 23:40 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 0:02 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 0:02 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 10:48 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 10:48 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 10:49 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 10:49 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 11:12 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 11:12 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 12:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 12:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 13:26 ` Alexander Sverdlin [this message]
2011-02-02 13:26 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 16:53 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 16:53 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 17:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 17:00 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 17:21 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 17:21 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 17:33 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 17:33 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2011-02-02 17:48 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 17:48 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 18:18 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 18:18 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 16:45 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 16:45 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 7:54 ` Mika Westerberg
2011-02-02 7:54 ` [alsa-devel] " Mika Westerberg
2011-02-02 16:27 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 16:27 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-02-02 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-02 10:51 ` [alsa-devel] " Mark Brown
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-01-23 0:51 Alexander Sverdlin
2011-01-24 16:30 ` H Hartley Sweeten
2011-01-25 11:46 ` Mark Brown
2011-01-25 12:08 ` Alexander Sverdlin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1296653211.1504.40.camel@r60e \
--to=subaparts@yandex.ru \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=buytenh@wantstofly.org \
--cc=dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=hartleys@visionengravers.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lrg@slimlogic.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.