On 10/24/07, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/24/07, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/24/07, Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jon Smirl wrote: > > > > Is this consensus on how the tree should look? > > > > > > > > There is no attempt to describe the codec connections inside the > > > > device tree. > > > > > > I don't think I agree with that. The device tree should indicate which > > > codec is > > > connected to which I2S/AC97 device. > > > > What I meant was that there is no attempt to describe how the codec is > > connected to the external world. Those connections are described in > > the fabric driver. > > > > I'm getting conflicting opinions on how the devices should be linked > > into the tree. We should pick one and add it to the documentation. > > Two valid methods have been proposed > 1. a codec-
oops 1. a codec-handle property in the i2s node 2. an i2s-handle property in the codec node Either are reasonable. I prefer putting the handle in the i2s node; but I'm looking at it from the way that ethernet phys are being described currently. The other is also perfectly valid. I suppose it depends on what point of view you see the system from; either: a. the codec is supported by the i2s bus, in which case use the i2s-handle property b. the i2s bus is supported by the codec; in which case use the codec-handle property. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
