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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:19:12 +0100
From:   neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...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 10:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

Ok

> 
>> 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
> 

Thanks,
Neil