Audio codec device tree entries

[Timur Tabi]

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.

I see that you do that for the AC97 node, but not the I2S node.  Why?

> I'm still not clear on how to trigger the load of the fabric driver.
> Right now I have a single kernel that works on Efika and my target
> hardware.  This gets sorted out by define_machine(xxxx). I'll write
> some code tonight to figure out how to load drivers and match on
> codec0, codec1, etc. But how do I probe for the fabric driver I need
> to figure out whether to load the Efika one or my target one.

I've been struggling with that one, too.  To keep it simple, I have the fabric 
driver just search for all the I2S nodes in my tree, and create ASoC objects for 
each one it finds.  There's some hackery there, but I don't think we need to 
solve all the problems at once.  The only thing that *has* to be right the first 
time is the device tree.

> i2s at 2200 {           // PSC2
>       compatible = "fsl,mpc5200b-psc-i2s","fsl,mpc5200-psc-i2s";
>       cell-index = <1>;
>       reg = <2200 100>;
>       interrupts = <2 2 0>;
>       interrupt-parent = <&mpc5200_pic>;
> };
> 
> i2c at 3d00 {
>       compatible = "fsl,mpc5200b-i2c", "fsl,mpc5200-i2c", "fsl-i2c";
>       #address-cells = <1>;
>       #size-cells = <0>;
>       cell-index = <0>;
>       reg = <3d00 40>;
>       interrupts = <2 f 0>;
>       interrupt-parent = <&mpc5200_pic>;
>       fsl5200-clocking;
> 
>       codec0: i2s-codec at 0 {
>             compatible = "ti,tas5508";
>             reg = <0>;
>             i2s-handle = <&i2s at 2000>;
>       };

I'd do this the other way around -- that is:

i2s at 2200 {           // PSC2
       	compatible = "fsl,mpc5200b-psc-i2s","fsl,mpc5200-psc-i2s";
	...
	i2c-handle = <&codec0>;	 /* Or something like that */
};

The reason is because I think the I2S driver will be instantiated *first* as an 
I2S driver and then it will create the I2C instantiation.