linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] ASoc: dt-bindings: Create yaml file for pcm6240 codec driver

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]

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 15:01:54 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Shenghao Ding <shenghao-ding@...com>, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
	kevin-lu@...com, baojun.xu@...com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz,
	pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com, 13916275206@....com,
	linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	liam.r.girdwood@...el.com, soyer@....hu, jkhuang3@...com,
	tiwai@...e.de, pdjuandi@...com, j-mcpherson@...com, navada@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] ASoc: dt-bindings: Create yaml file for pcm6240
 codec driver

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:25:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/01/2024 12:14, Shenghao Ding wrote:

> > ---
> > Change in v1:
> >  - Create yaml file for pcm6240 codec driver

> I don't understand. v1 is the first version. Against what is this change?

This appears to be a perfectly clear description of the contents of the
first version, it's a change against the tree before the patch is
applied.  It's a bit unusual to include a per version changelog on the
first version but not a problem.

> > +    enum:
> > +      - ti,adc3120
> > +      - ti,adc5120
> > +      - ti,adc6120
> > +      - ti,dix4192
> > +      - ti,pcm1690
> > +      - ti,pcm3120
> > +      - ti,pcm3140
> > +      - ti,pcm5120
> > +      - ti,pcm5140
> > +      - ti,pcm6120
> > +      - ti,pcm6140
> > +      - ti,pcm6240
> > +      - ti,pcm6260
> > +      - ti,pcm9211
> > +      - ti,pcmd3140
> > +      - ti,pcmd3180
> > +      - ti,pcmd512x
> > +      - ti,taa5212
> > +      - ti,taa5412
> > +      - ti,tad5212
> > +      - ti,tad5412

> And none of them are compatible with something?

No idea about these specific chips but that would be entirely normal for
CODECs, even where things are subsets there's often some tweaks needed
to initialisation or whatever.

> > +     two: pcmdevice@48 {

> Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of
> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation

Please be more specific about what you're looking to see there.
pcmdevice doesn't seem particularly more specific than something like
dsp, it certainly seems within what the text describes.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)