Re: [PATCH] ASoC:pcm512x: Make PLL lock output selectable via device tree.

[Howard Mitchell]

On 22/03/15 16:24, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 09:22:43PM +0000, Howard Mitchell wrote:
>
> > +	if (pcm512x->pll_lock) {
> > +                if (of_property_read_u32(np, "pll-lock", &val) >= 0) {
> > +                        if (val > 6) {
> > +                                dev_err(dev, "Invalid pll-lock\n");
> > +                                ret = -EINVAL;
> > +                                goto err_clk;
> > +                        }
> > +                        pcm512x->pll_lock = val;
> > +                }
> This breaks existing boards which rely on GPIO 4 being set as the lock
> output.  This is very unfortunate since it's a silly thing for the
> driver to default to but nontheless we should really continue to support
> them - at a guess Peter's board is relying on this, and even if it isn't
> someone else's might.
I take your point, but the reason I pushed this patch was that I wanted 
to use GPIO4 for pll-out and unfortunately because the pll-lock 
configuration is after the pll-out configuration it stomps on it. If I 
modify the patch to provide a default for pll-lock I will then be 
obliged to specify pll-lock on another GPIO. The pcm5122 has limited IO 
so being forced to have a GPIO for pll-lock seems wrong to me. A future 
user of the device may well decide to use the GPIOs for other purposes 
and therefore not want a pll-lock signal at all. Surely we should allow 
for that possibility?

Given that Peter has indicated that he'd be happy with this solution and 
that this code hasn't reached a published kernel would it be reasonable 
to go ahead with my current patch (happy to clean up the indent issues 
that Peter pointed out of course)?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/