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 16:04:18 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.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 23/01/2024 16:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

I want to double check with the author.

> 
>>> +     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.

pcm, codec, audio-codec
"device" seems redundant, because almost everything is some sort of device.

Best regards,
Krzysztof