[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <epx43xeghpqcourix74uyjdm6kpovlqocx7l34z3bvumk7ehfb@sfvjvladp2oh>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 11:42:44 +0000
From: Alvin Šipraga <ALSI@...g-olufsen.dk>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Alvin Šipraga <alvin@...s.dk>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ASoC: dt-bindings: document new symmetric-clock-role
flag
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 12:12:52PM +0000, Alvin Šipraga wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 12:43:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Why would we have a property for this and not just describe whatever the
> > > actual clocking arrangement is?
>
> > Sure - let me just elaborate on my thinking and maybe you can help me with a
> > better approach:
>
> > The clocking arrangement is encoded in the dai_fmt field of snd_soc_dai_link,
> > but this is a single value that describes the format on both ends. The current
> > behaviour of ASoC is to flip the clock roles encoded in dai_fmt when applying it
> > to the CPU side of the link.
>
> > Looking from a DT perspective, if I do not specify e.g. bitclock-master on
> > either side of the link, then the dai_fmt will describe the codec as a bitclock
> > consumer and (after flipping) the CPU as a provider. That's the default
> > implication of the DT bindings and I can't break compatibility there.
>
> None of this addresses my question. To repeat why would we not just
> describe the actual clocking arrangement here - this property does not
> specify where the clock actually comes from at all, we're still going to
> need additional information for that and if we've described that clock
> then we already know it's there without having to specify any more
> properties.
Maybe I overcomplicated your point with my previous reply. Some questions to
clarify:
1. You don't like the DT property because it should be inferrable by other
means. Correct?
2. As for the flag added to snd_soc_dai_link, do you think that is an OK
approach?
Just want to understand which direction you would like me to focus the
effort.
Kind regards,
Alvin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists