On 03/01/16 21:26, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:29:17 +0200
> Jyri Sarha <jsarha at ti.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand the short comings of simple-card and it's binding. However,
>> the binding is documented and it is feasible to extract the audio
>> connections from a simple-card binding too. In fact it models the I2S
>> connections better than straight out of tehe box graph binding. Actually
>> a graph is not the best way describe an i2s-bus with multiple DAIs
>> (codec or CPU) connected to it.
>
> I still don't understand your problem. You want something like:
>
The problem is adding redundant unused details into binding without any
plan of ever using them.
Fundamentally my problem is finding some consensus on the tda998x ASoC
implementation. I've been reusing your binding for couple of review
rounds and there has been some well justified critique towards it. I
feel stupid in pushing forward something that I do not completely agree
myself, so I decided to try something else.
> audio-ports = < TDA998x_SPDIF 0x04
> TDA998x_I2S 0x03>;
>
> and the graph definition would be:
>
> port at 03 {
> reg = <0x03>;
> port-type = "audio-i2s";
> ...
> };
>
> port at 04 {
> reg = <0x04>;
> port-type = "audio-spdif";
> ...
> };
>
> Apart the syntax, I don't really see the difference.
>
Yes, the necessary information is contained in both bindings. I can live
with either one of them, but I would prefer my version. Essentially I
would just like to move forward.
Best regards,
Jyri
