[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150114125056.GU4160@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:50:56 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>,
Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@...e.fr>,
Andrew Jackson <Andrew.Jackson@....com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] drm/i2c: tda998x: Add DT support for audio
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:46:58AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> So the question is mostly whether four I2S data pins with a single
> shared WS/SCK input should be called "four I2S ports with shared clocks"
> or "one I2S port with up to four data lanes". I'd lean towards the
> latter.
Yes, this is what we're doing for the Samsung CPU side controllers which
implement this natively and seems to make sense here too - the different
channels can't really work as separate interfaces in any practical way.
> How audio2_i2s is forced to synchronize its clock output to audio1_i2s
> is a problem their bindings will have to handle.
Trying to hook up a controller that doesn't natively support this format
to a device that uses it is definitely tricky, as well as describing the
physical hookup we also need to worry about how things look to userspace
- it's ideally going to want a single multi-channel audio stream.
I think from a binding point of view we need a way to say "this endpoint
on the link is constructed from these DAIs on the device side" and say
if this is TDM or multi-data, and what's driving the clocks.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists