linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8750: Add Soundwire nodes

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: <17b9649d-b788-4a13-b7eb-bf54b7a83b0f@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 10:26:58 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8750: Add Soundwire nodes

On 12/05/2025 21:38, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750.dtsi | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 122 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750.dtsi
>>>> index 149d2ed17641a085d510f3a8eab5a96304787f0c..1e7aa25c675e76ce6aa571e04d7117b8c2ab25f8 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8750.dtsi
>>>> @@ -2257,6 +2257,36 @@ lpass_wsa2macro: codec@...0000 {
>>>>  			#sound-dai-cells = <1>;
>>>>  		};
>>>>  
>>>> +		swr3: soundwire@...0000 {
>>>> +			compatible = "qcom,soundwire-v2.0.0";
>>>
>>> They're v2.1.0, same on 8650, there's a number of new registers
>>
>> Sorry, but no. This the "generic" compatible and it is correct. Devices
>> expose versions, which is perfectly usable, thus changing compatible to
>> different one is not useful. We could go with soc specific compatibles
>> and new generic one, but what would that solve? This one is generic
>> enough - the device is compatible with v2.0.
> 
> Well, I'd expect a "2.1.0", "2.0.0" fallback there..

OK, let's see if any DT maintainer will ack such thing. :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof