On 31/08/2022 12:17, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>
> On 18/08/2022 18:12, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>> Add compatible for sm8450 and sc8280xp.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c b/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c
>>> index 27da6c6c3c5a..f82c297ea3ab 100644
>>> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c
>>> @@ -2561,6 +2561,8 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops wsa_macro_pm_ops = {
>>> static const struct of_device_id wsa_macro_dt_match[] = {
>>> {.compatible = "qcom,sc7280-lpass-wsa-macro"},
>>> {.compatible = "qcom,sm8250-lpass-wsa-macro"},
>>> + {.compatible = "qcom,sm8450-lpass-wsa-macro"},
>>> + {.compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-lpass-wsa-macro" },
>>
>> Looks like these are backwards compatible with the existing versions,
>> why not reflect that in the binding?
> Backward compatibility is not always true, some of the registers and
> there defaults tend to change across SoCs. Having SoC specific
> compatible could help us deal with this and also make code more inline
> with other codec macros in LPASS IP.
I am not saying that there should be no SoC specific compatible. This
one is a must, but the question why duplicating the entries and not
using fallback?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
