[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4072123.0gxhY3eTYf@njaxe>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 17:38:16 +0200
From: matteomartelli3@...il.com
To: Matteo Martelli <matteomartelli3@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: es8311: dt-bindings: add everest es8311 codec
On Monday, 13 May 2024 10.53.57 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/05/2024 15:00, Matteo Martelli wrote:
> > Add DT bindings documentation for the Everest-semi ES8311 codec.
> >
> > Everest-semi ES8311 codec is a low-power mono audio codec with I2S audio
> > interface and I2C control.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matteo Martelli <matteomartelli3@...il.com>
> > ---
> > .../bindings/sound/everest,es8311.yaml | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/everest,es8311.yaml
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/everest,es8311.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/everest,es8311.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..54fb58b9ab58
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/everest,es8311.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/sound/everest,es8311.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: Everest ES8311 audio CODEC
>
> This looks exactly like es8316, except of later added port. Are you sure
> you are not planning to add port later, which would make both schemas
> identical?
I did not pay enough attention to audio-graph-port property which is in
fact supported and could be added as well. Thus the es8311.yaml would be
identical to es8316.yaml. My guess is that I should just add the
"everest,es8311" compatible string to the existing es8316.yaml even if the
two drivers are separate (like for instance mediatek,mt8186-clock.yaml). Is
this correct?
If that's the case:
* should the evereset,es8316.yaml file be renamed to evereset,es831x.yaml?
* should I also add myself to the maintainers list of that schema?
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
Thanks for your support,
Matteo Martelli
Powered by blists - more mailing lists