linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: sound: add bindings for pm4125 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]

Message-ID: <8d869d3b-c815-49fb-a367-c404bfb55d98@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 08:22:26 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@...nel.org>,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
 Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: sound: add bindings for pm4125 audio
 codec

On 02/07/2025 01:30, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>>>>> +  It has RX and TX Soundwire slave devices. This bindings is for the
>>>>> +  slave devices.
>>>>
>>>> Last sentence is redundant and makes no sense. Codec has only slave
>>>> devices, so how this can be anything else than for slave devices?
>>>
>>> This came from other similar files that describe bindings for child codec nodes
>>> of soundwire nodes. For example from qcom,wcd937x-sdw.yaml.
>>> Should this be rephrased to "This bindings is for the soundwire slave devices." ?
>>
>> You just pasted the same, so I don't get how you want to rephrase into
>> the same sentence.
> 
> Not really.
> Original sentence: "This bindings is for the slave devices."
> Sentence from my email: "This bindings is for the soundwire slave devices."
> 
> The difference is 1 word.
> If it doesn't work, then maybe any suggestions?
> 
> Maybe "This bindings is for audio codec node that must be a child node of the
> associated soundwire master node."?
No, drop, it's not the pattern in the bindings. We don't explain that
I2C device should be in I2C bus, because that's obvious. Saying this is
a Soundwire device should be enough.

Best regards,
Krzysztof