From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolin Chen Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v2 1/7] ASoC: fsl_sai: Add registers definition for multiple datalines Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:59:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20190730075934.GA5892@Asurada> References: <20190728192429.1514-1-daniel.baluta@nxp.com> <20190728192429.1514-2-daniel.baluta@nxp.com> <20190729194214.GA20594@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com> <20190729202001.GC4787@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190729202001.GC4787@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Daniel Baluta , Daniel Baluta , Devicetree List , Linux-ALSA , Pengutronix Kernel Team , Timur Tabi , Rob Herring , "S.j. Wang" , "Angus Ainslie (Purism)" , Takashi Iwai , Linux Kernel Mailing List , dl-linux-imx , Viorel Suman , Fabio Estevam , Mihai Serban , Lucas Stach List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 09:20:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:57:43PM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:42 PM Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:24:23PM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote: > > > > > @@ -704,7 +711,14 @@ static bool fsl_sai_readable_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) > > > > case FSL_SAI_TCR3: > > > > case FSL_SAI_TCR4: > > > > case FSL_SAI_TCR5: > > > > - case FSL_SAI_TFR: > > > > + case FSL_SAI_TFR0: > > > > A tricky thing here is that those SAI instances on older SoC don't > > > support multi data lines physically, while seemly having registers > > > pre-defined. So your change doesn't sound doing anything wrong to > > > them at all, I am still wondering if it is necessary to apply them > > > to newer compatible only though, as for older compatibles of SAI, > > > these registers would be useless and confusing if being exposed. > > > > What do you think? > > > Yes, I thought about this too. But, I tried to keep the code as short > > as possible and technically it is not wrong. When 1 data line is supported > > for example application will only care about TDR0, TFR0, etc. > > So long as it's safe to read the registers (you don't get a bus error or > anything) I'd say it's more trouble than it's worth to have separate > regmap configuations just for this. The main reasons for restricting > readability are where there's physical problems with doing the reads or > to keep the size of the debugfs files under control for usability and > performance reasons. Thanks for the input, Mark. Daniel, did you get a chance to test it on older SoCs? At least nothing breaks like bus errors?