On 09/11/2012 08:14 PM, Eric Millbrandt wrote:
> Describe the audio codec on the pcm030 baseboard.
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/pcm030.dts
> + sound {
> + compatible = "fsl,mpc5200b-soc-audio","fsl,mpc5200-soc-audio";
> + card-name = "pcm030";
> + audio-platform = <&audio_platform>;
> + number-of-dais = <2>;
> +
> + analog@0 {
Purely from a DT perspective (i.e. I didn't look at the code that parses
this), you don't need to include the "@0" and "@1" in the node names,
because the two node names "analog" and "digital" are already unique.
However, in general I can see that you might want multiple analog DAIs.
There are a couple choices for differentiating the node names in that case:
1) If you want to use the "@0" unit address syntax in the node names to
differentiate them, each child node needs a reg property containing the
same value, and the parent node needs properties #address-cells=<1>,
#size-cells=<0>;
2) Or, since this is within an individual device binding rather than
something within a standardized bus, you can simply choose to make the
node names unique in some other way, such as "analog0", "analog1", i.e.
without the "@"; I believe the "@" syntax would be explicitly reserved
for representing a unit address as in (1).
Of course, I could be wrong about this assertion that the "@n" is
reserved for the unit address even with the privacy of an individual
binding; it'd be best to validate it by posting to the
devicetree-discuss mailing list.
> + stream-name = "AC97 Analog";
> + codec-name = "wm9712-codec.0";
> + codec-dai-name = "wm9712-hifi";
> + cpu-dai-name = "mpc5200-psc-ac97.0";
> + };
> +
> + digital@1 {
> + stream-name = "AC97 IEC958";
> + codec-name = "wm9712-codec.0";
> + codec-dai-name = "wm9712-aux";
> + cpu-dai-name = "mpc5200-psc-ac97.0";
> + };
> + };
> };
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
