On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 12:25:32PM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 12/19/07, Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > + compatible = "fsl,ssi";
> > + cell-index = <0>;
> > + reg = <16000 100>;
> > + interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
> > + interrupts = <3e 2>;
> > + fsl,mode = "i2s-slave";
> > + codec {
> > + compatible = "cirrus,cs4270";
> > + /* MCLK source is a stand-alone oscillator
> > */
> > + bus-frequency = <bb8000>;
> > + };
> > + };
>
> Does this need to be bus-frequency? It's always called MCLK in all of
> the literature.
>
> In my case the MCLK comes from a chip on the i2c bus that is
> programmable How would that be encoded?.
Grah! If there's one obvious frequency for a node, it should always
be "clock-frequency". This bus-frequency nonsense seems to be a
disease that started as a secondary frequency in Freescale CPU nodes,
and has escaped to all sorts of other places.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
