RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] ASoc: dt-bindings: Create yaml file for pcm6240 codec driver

[Ding, Shenghao]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 11:04 PM
> To: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ding, Shenghao <shenghao-ding@xxxxxx>; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Lu, Kevin <kevin-
> lu@xxxxxx>; Xu, Baojun <baojun.xu@xxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx; perex@xxxxxxxx; pierre-
> louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 13916275206@xxxxxxx; linux-
> sound@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> liam.r.girdwood@xxxxxxxxx; soyer@xxxxxx; Huang, Jonathan
> <jkhuang3@xxxxxx>; tiwai@xxxxxxx; Djuandi, Peter <pdjuandi@xxxxxx>;
> McPherson, Jeff <j-mcpherson@xxxxxx>; Navada Kanyana, Mukund
> <navada@xxxxxx>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] ASoc: dt-bindings: Create yaml file
> for pcm6240 codec driver
> 
> On 23/01/2024 16: 01, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at
> 12: 25: 04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 23/01/2024 12: 14,
> Shenghao Ding wrote: > >>> --- >>> Change in v1: >>> - Create yaml
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This
> message came from outside your organization.
> 
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> On 23/01/2024 16:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:25:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 23/01/2024 12:14, Shenghao Ding wrote:
> >
> >>> ---
> >>> Change in v1:
> >>>  - Create yaml file for pcm6240 codec driver
> >
> >> I don't understand. v1 is the first version. Against what is this change?
> >
> > This appears to be a perfectly clear description of the contents of
> > the first version, it's a change against the tree before the patch is
> > applied.  It's a bit unusual to include a per version changelog on the
> > first version but not a problem.
> >
> >>> +    enum:
> >>> +      - ti,adc3120
> >>> +      - ti,adc5120
> >>> +      - ti,adc6120
> >>> +      - ti,dix4192
> >>> +      - ti,pcm1690
> >>> +      - ti,pcm3120
> >>> +      - ti,pcm3140
> >>> +      - ti,pcm5120
> >>> +      - ti,pcm5140
> >>> +      - ti,pcm6120
> >>> +      - ti,pcm6140
> >>> +      - ti,pcm6240
> >>> +      - ti,pcm6260
> >>> +      - ti,pcm9211
> >>> +      - ti,pcmd3140
> >>> +      - ti,pcmd3180
> >>> +      - ti,pcmd512x
> >>> +      - ti,taa5212
> >>> +      - ti,taa5412
> >>> +      - ti,tad5212
> >>> +      - ti,tad5412
> >
> >> And none of them are compatible with something?
> >
> > No idea about these specific chips but that would be entirely normal
> > for CODECs, even where things are subsets there's often some tweaks
> > needed to initialisation or whatever.
> 
> I want to double check with the author.
> 
All these chips have only a small feature of codec, such as ADC or DAC,
but their audio performance is far superior to the codec's, and cost is lower 
than codec, and easier to program than codec.
Simply one or two register settings can enable them to work. Init for 
these chips are hardware reset or software reset.
As to some audio filter params for internal filters, it is up to the special 
user cases, which can be saved into the bin file.  The default value also 
can work well.
> >
> >>> +     two: pcmdevice@48 {
> >
> >> Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of
> >> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://devicetree-specification.readthed
> >> ocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html*generic-names-
> recomm
> >>
> endation__;Iw!!G3vK!UaR7OlVhIZucD0CMyBe4iiYyWCl4k_ExXJ6HHG3Fz3qy4
> OPWH
> >> esNTs-57iZ8MjCUYfaxVLq8OOGOuOYvkNsth-H6y1cO$
> >
> > Please be more specific about what you're looking to see there.
> > pcmdevice doesn't seem particularly more specific than something like
> > dsp, it certainly seems within what the text describes.
> 
> pcm, codec, audio-codec
> "device" seems redundant, because almost everything is some sort of device.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof