linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DDP051W3LY8F.3FK5FJT1ABLTG@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:46:44 +0100
From: "Alexey Klimov" <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>
To: "Srinivas Kandagatla" <srinivas.kandagatla@....qualcomm.com>, "Dmitry
 Baryshkov" <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: "Srinivas Kandagatla" <srini@...nel.org>, "Liam Girdwood"
 <lgirdwood@...il.com>, "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>, "Rob Herring"
 <robh@...nel.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "Jaroslav Kysela"
 <perex@...ex.cz>, "Takashi Iwai" <tiwai@...e.com>,
 <linux-sound@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and
 RB1 soundcards

On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 12:27 PM BST, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 10/17/25 8:35 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 8:46 PM BST, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 18:08, Srinivas Kandagatla
>>> <srinivas.kandagatla@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>>>>> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
>>>>> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
>>>>> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@...nel.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>>> index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
>>>>>                - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
>>>>>                - qcom,db845c-sndcard
>>>>>            - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>> +              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
>>>> I don't think you need rb1 specific compatible here, unless there this
>>>> is totally different to what the base compatible can provide.
>>>
>>> Why do we need to deviate from other platforms which declare
>>> board-specific compat too?
>> 
>> There seems to be now a few incompatible suggestions for rb1 sndcard:
>> - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,sm8250-sndcard (1);
>> - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard (2);
>> - add separate compatible/enum for rb1 sndcard as qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard (3);
>> - add base compatible as qcom,qrb2210-sndcard and fallback
>> rb1 sndcard compatible to it.
>> 
>> The latter one is ruled out because base compatible should be used and
>> it is not going to.
>> 
>> As far as I can see the last addition went simply with (3).
>> Which one finally you all want?
>
> Am fine with either "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" or "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"
> as long as we reflect that correct driver name in machine driver.
>
> traditionally we have SoC level compatible which works fine for 99% of
> the boards for that SoC, expectation was that if there is any deviation
> or board specific changes required, this can be accommodate using model
> information. am fine with board specific compatible too, however am not
> okay with both "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" and "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"  or
> falling back to another board compatible for various reason one being ucm.
>
> So 1 and 2 re *NOK*
>
> I hope this provides some clarity here.

Yes. Thanks. I went with SoC-level compatible in the latest version.

Thanks,
Alexey