On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:09:59 +0000
Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:23:42AM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:

quoted

But now, I am wondering again about these `empty`codecs:
- in a DT context, should we continue to add / modify such codecs?
- what do you think about my generic DT codec? (indeed, I would do a new
  version according to the previous remarks)

We still want to be able to have users just name the CODEC on their
board rather than have to type in all the details from the datasheet,
if we're going to try to amalgamate the drivers it should still let
people do that.

OK. But it seems to me that the codec is not tied to the board, but
rather to the audio connector / transmitter.

In the case of the tda998x HDMI transmitter, either i2s or s/pdif may
be used, thanks to the actual codecs 'hdmi' and 'spdif tx'. But they
don't work the same way: the 'hdmi' codec handles both playback and
record, and recording is disabled by program in the sound device,
while the 'spdif tx' codec is selected by the codec-dai-name
("dit-hifi" - it is "dir-hifi" for recording). It would be nice if
these codecs would have the same behaviour...

-- 
Ken ar c'henta?	|	      ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
Jef		|		http://moinejf.free.fr/