linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] ASoC: dt-bindings: document WCD939x Audio Codec

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <91528bf4-c971-415e-afb4-51791c6dfc91@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:17:34 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ASoC: dt-bindings: document WCD939x Audio Codec

On 28/11/2023 10:14, neil.armstrong@...aro.org wrote:
>>
>> Here the device exposes its version in registers, so you can easily rely
>> on the compatibility. That's also the case multiple times talked on the
>> mailing lists.
> 
> ... you're right here version can be determined at runtime.
> 
> But, since both are compatible, there's no primary part number, right?
> 
> so why use "qcom,wcd9395-codec", "qcom,wcd9390-codec"

This one, please.

> when "qcom,wcd9390-codec", "qcom,wcd9395-codec" should
> also be valid, so in this can why not use :

Could be valid, sure, but we are humans and we treat higher number as
something newer or bigger, thus previous one feels more natural. There
are examples of this way, though.


> "qcom,wcd9390-codec", "qcom,wcd939x-codec"
> or
> "qcom,wcd9395-codec", "qcom,wcd939x-codec"

This not, because wildcards are not allowed in the compatibles. In the
past there were examples how a wildcard stopped being wild, so guideline
is: just don't use them.

Best regards,
Krzysztof