On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 06:44:30PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > It's possible there is a benefit I'm just not seeing but you'll need to > > tell me. > The first benefit I got was in the front-end definition: the codec side > is the dummy codec, and this one has no phandle. That's a sign that you're putting Linux implementation details into your DT - remember, DT is supposed to be implementation neutral. > Then, finding the CODEC DAI from phandle asks for more code > (of_xlate_dai_name in the CODEC drivers) and finding it from the CODEC They should be able to use a default there; I'd expect that just to be making the IDs the same as the index into the array or the ID field. > name asks for a double loop in soc_bind_dai_link. On the other way, a > simple loop without any more change may be used when the DAI is simply > specified by its name. I would say that the DAI name is more meaningful Then as soon as anything else starts using the same name for some reason the binding stops being useful. > than a DAI index and that it is less subject to internal changes of the > CODEC driver. Obviously the numbers that get assigned become a part of the ABI and can't be changed. Now that we have preprocessor support for DT the plain text can be done with that, though for a lot of devices that won't be needed as the devices are just numbered anyway. > Eventually, I don't think that, using only the name of the CODEC side > DAI to identify it, is not more fragile than identifying the CPU side > of the DAI link by its name. This doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it - as you will remember I said I expected things to want to go more towards using phandle plus ID for everything.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
