linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ASoC: dt-bindings: lpc32xx: Add lpc32xx i2s DT binding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAG+cZ06kzikieaD_JCBybwWk8XKZQjJxa34Cg4QHxrxpT+j0eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:04:38 +0200
From: Piotr Wojtaszczyk <piotr.wojtaszczyk@...esys.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, 
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, "J.M.B. Downing" <jonathan.downing@...tel.com>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Chancel Liu <chancel.liu@....com>, 
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ASoC: dt-bindings: lpc32xx: Add lpc32xx i2s DT binding

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 2:14 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 17/06/2024 11:33, Piotr Wojtaszczyk wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:01 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> Do not attach (thread) your patchsets to some other threads (unrelated
> >> or older versions). This buries them deep in the mailbox and might
> >> interfere with applying entire sets.
> >
> > I'm sorry about that, it won't happen again.
> >
> >>> +  dma-vc-names:
> >>
> >> Missing vendor prefix... but I don't really get what's the point of this
> >> property.
> >
> > Is "nxp,lpc3xxx-dma-vc-names" acceptable?
>
> No, because it does not help me to understand:
> " what's the point of this property."
>
> >
> >>
> >>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string-array
> >>> +    description: |
> >>> +      names of virtual pl08x dma channels for tx and rx
> >>> +      directions in this order.
> >>> +    minItems: 2
> >>> +    maxItems: 2
> >>
> >> What part of hardware or board configuration this represents?
> >>
> >> It wasn't here and nothing in changelog explained it.
> >
> > That's information which DMA signal and mux setting an I2S interface uses.
> > It's a name (bus_id field) of platform data entry from phy3250.c in
> > [PATCH v3 3/4].
>
> platform entries from driver do not seem related at all to hardware
> description. You know encode driver model into bindings, so obviously no-go.

In this case platform entries do exactly that, they define which dma
signal number is
routed to peripherals in LPC32xx. They describe hardware capabilities
of the pl08x dma
and which AHB bus the dma is connected to. This was carried over from
linux versions
before DT was introduced.

>
> > It's used by snd_soc_dai_init_dma_data() in [PATCH v3 4/4] to give the
> > dmaengine a
> > hint which dma config to use. The LPC32xx doesn't have yet a dmamux driver like
>
> and if I change driver platform data to foo and bar, does the DTS work? No.

They shouldn't change the same way as expected dma-names shouldn't change.
Lots of drivers expect the dma-names to be "rx", "tx"

>
> > lpc18xx-dmamux.c therefore it still uses platform data entries for
> > pl08x dma channels
> > and 'SND_DMAENGINE_PCM_FLAG_NO_DT | SND_DMAENGINE_PCM_FLAG_COMPAT'
> > flags in the devm_snd_dmaengine_pcm_register().
> > Typically instead of this platform data you would use regular 'dma'
> > and 'dma-names' if it had
> > proper dmamux driver like lpc18xx-dmamux.c
>
> Exactly. Use these.

Then I need to write a lpc32xx dma mux driver, device tree binding for
it and adjust the
LPC32xx I2S driver for it. Is this a hard requirement to accept this
patch set for the
legacy LPC32xx SoC?

>
> >
> >>
> >> Drop.
> >>
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +  "#sound-dai-cells":
> >>> +    const: 0
> >>> +
> >
> > The "dai-common.yam" doesn't declare a default value for this so
>
> Where is my comment to which you refer to? Please do not drop context
> from replies. I have no clue what you want to discuss here.
Well I didn't remove the context, you said:
"
Drop.
(...)
+  "#sound-dai-cells":
+    const: 0
"
So I'm confused whether the "#sound-dai-cells" should be in the dt
binding or not.

-- 
Piotr Wojtaszczyk
Timesys