From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933449AbaCQNoL (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:44:11 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:47424 "EHLO mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932640AbaCQNoE (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:44:04 -0400 Message-ID: <5326FC20.9020304@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:44:00 +0100 From: Boris BREZILLON User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown , Bo Shen CC: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, Boris BREZILLON , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Rob Landley , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] ASoC: atmel: document clock properties of the wm8904 driver References: <1395049541-28128-1-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com> <1395049541-28128-8-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com> <20140317115518.GD11706@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140317115518.GD11706@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Mark, Le 17/03/2014 12:55, Mark Brown a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:45:40PM +0800, Bo Shen wrote: > >> - compatible: "atmel,asoc-wm8904" >> - atmel,model: The user-visible name of this sound complex. >> + - clocks: A list of clocks needed by the wm8904 chip. >> + - clock-output-names: Driver related clock names. Shall contain "pck0". > If this is a clock for the CODEC it should be documented as part of the > binding for the CODEC and connected to the CODEC in the device tree > rather than being part of a machine driver binding. Tell me if I'm mistaken, but doing this would implies a lot of changes. The current wm8904 driver does not handle clk retrieval and configuration, and I'm afraid that introducing these concepts would break other drivers (those connecting to a wm8904 codec). Do you see a simple alternative to this approach (or is there something I misunderstood in your suggestion) ? How about adding CCF support as proposed in this series and think about a cleaner solution for a future release ? Best Regards, Boris