On 10/01/2024 13:57, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 01:51:03PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 10/01/2024 12:37, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:07:30PM +0100, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>
>>>> If restricting things here is really important, defaulting to 0 (with a
>>>> comment explaining it) and letting actual devices then override the
>>>> value would feel less 'made up'
>
>> Wait, what do you mean by "letting actual devices then override"? It's
>> already like this. Nothing changed. What do you refer to?
>
> The suggestion is that instead of limiting to 1 and having one device
Nothing limits here to 0. I limit from all technically possible values
to reasonable subset.
> override limit to 0 and have all the devices that need 1 override as
> well.
I don't think that actual default value for this should be provided.
This should be conscious choice when writing bindings and driver.
Similarly we do already for some other #cells:
#io-channel-cells, address/size-cells (dtschema), #mux-control-cells and
others.
I agree we do not restrict all of them, though. However I do not see
single reason to allow developers use 3 as #sound-dai-cells.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
[Index of Archives]
[Pulseaudio]
[Linux Audio Users]
[ALSA Devel]
[Fedora Desktop]
[Fedora SELinux]
[Big List of Linux Books]
[Yosemite News]
[KDE Users]