On 28/11/2023 10:14, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> Here the device exposes its version in registers, so you can easily rely >> on the compatibility. That's also the case multiple times talked on the >> mailing lists. > > ... you're right here version can be determined at runtime. > > But, since both are compatible, there's no primary part number, right? > > so why use "qcom,wcd9395-codec", "qcom,wcd9390-codec" This one, please. > when "qcom,wcd9390-codec", "qcom,wcd9395-codec" should > also be valid, so in this can why not use : Could be valid, sure, but we are humans and we treat higher number as something newer or bigger, thus previous one feels more natural. There are examples of this way, though. > "qcom,wcd9390-codec", "qcom,wcd939x-codec" > or > "qcom,wcd9395-codec", "qcom,wcd939x-codec" This not, because wildcards are not allowed in the compatibles. In the past there were examples how a wildcard stopped being wild, so guideline is: just don't use them. Best regards, Krzysztof
