Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:47:57 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ajye Huang <ajye_huang@compal.corp-partner.google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.corp-partner.google.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ASoC: dt-bindings: Document dmic_sel-gpios
 optional prop for two DMICs case
Message-ID: <Y2A0fdwnHTqw/NDw@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20221028102450.1161382-1-ajye_huang@compal.corp-partner.google.com>
 <20221028102450.1161382-2-ajye_huang@compal.corp-partner.google.com>
 <Y1vDYNOwZNOco1hq@sirena.org.uk>
 <20221031184343.GA3235956-robh@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pRY+kIEVcpKIGhxD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221031184343.GA3235956-robh@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk


--pRY+kIEVcpKIGhxD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:43:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 12:56:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If we're going to do this we should also allow the bindings to label the
> > mics appropriately so that the control presented can reflect the actual
> > hardware.  It does feel like it might fit better to do this separately
> > to the DMIC driver as a mux between the DMIC and the DAI it's connected
> > to but equally with the way things are at the minute that feels like
> > it's probably disproportionate effort.

> Are there other needs for DAI muxes? We already have a mux binding, so=20
> defining a DAI mux would work for any type of muxing control, not just=20
> GPIO.

I suspect that anything that is more complex than a GPIO should be a
full fledged CODEC with the muxing internal to the CODEC and just
described that way.

--pRY+kIEVcpKIGhxD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmNgNH0ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CPiQf+LUWw1ke44xSDRkole2tffbqEgGrQ0COXYU/ML5N5/q7uaKxeDi1B+9d6
d1ApwJ8uynaEU6uxxoBlgI1DECj4+1nKYVTujWBinU9jHlqNqbHld6urtcqC/CLC
eNUAl/BvuvlgbPDnZVuRL5452ra73bPqZShjx3ZHEgDRBvBQ0Rk5sAms8TGIdg51
yI4FY9XhHr3XCF/4GfZj2wKjip1mszPFOTvvwlmu6Dm1GQtTHffyMH5N2/u59MAy
7F0qRipL6HTKkJ0aiPPOULHJfWX72vCik1o5VvlDTRGswbw/+9UWR2rM9Mj00F2F
sv6gCaIhR0tvygxrEokN2LZkfFK9Lg==
=gzmB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--pRY+kIEVcpKIGhxD--