On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 01:46:41PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > So it is entirely a software construct? Why does it need a dt-binding > > then? Your commit message says the controller is present on the device! > > A typical embedded (or power efficient laptop) audio design will consist > of multiple devices connected together (frequently via non-control > buses) together with system level passive components and plastics which > are also important to the audio configuration. A card binding describes > the interconections between the devices in the system and provides > identification information for the audio subsystem. This system level > audio integration is a physical thing that can be pointed at that > requires real software control. The bit you were responding to with that was a disingenuous question. Probably not fair of me to ask one of a non-native speaker like that, when all I wanted to know was whether it was appropriate not to add a more specific compatible, or whether this was something invariant. > Like I said before please look at the existing audio card bindings. Yah, ofc I did that to see if there were other similar bindings that used specific compatibles...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
