Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:01:41 +0200 | From | Sebastian Reichel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv3 2/6] dt-bindings: sound: add motorola,cpcap-audio-codec |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:48:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:10:26PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > Motorola CPCAP is a PMIC with audio functionality, that can be > > found on Motorola Droid 4 and probably a few other phones from > > Motorola's Droid series. > > Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the > subsystem. This makes it easier for people to identify relevant > patches. Look at what existing commits in the area you're changing are > doing and make sure your subject lines visually resemble what they're > doing.
Right, I did not notice, that ASoC does not follow general "dt-bindings: <subsys>:" DT bindings subject style. How do Rob and Mark find them?
> > +&cpcap { > > + audio-codec { > > + compatible = "motorola,cpcap-audio-codec"; > > + vdd-supply = <&vaudio>; > > + }; > > +}; > > I'd expect supplies (especially generically named supplies like this) to > be looked up at the chip level - aside from my general concerns with MFD > subnodes like this in the case of supplies it's especially problematic > as it makes it harder to do the generic chip level hookup in the DT and > it precludes other parts of the chip using the same supply (which seems > especially likely with a generically named supply like this).
I don't follow you here. Why can't other parts of the chip use the same supply? Regarding the other point: Handling the audio-codec differently than all other sub-modules of cpcap seems much more problematic to me and the codec is basically the last one missing:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/motorola-cpcap-mapphone.dtsi
-- Sebastian [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |