On 09/09/2024 14:28, Andrei.Simion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> minItems: 1 >>> >>> + sound-name-prefix: >>> + pattern: "^I2SMCC[0-9]$" >> >> This does not look correct. Name/prefix can be anything matching real >> hardware, why are you restricting it? How can you predict all names? >> > Based on the datasheet, the SoC(s) have the following naming conventions: > - sama7g5: I2SMCC0 and I2SMCC1 > - sam9x60/sam9x75: I2SMCC > > To accommodate these variations, I propose using a more relaxed pattern: "^I2SMCC(0-9)?$". > This pattern allows for both the fixed prefix and an optional single digit at the end. > What are your thoughts on this approach? I understand this does not differ per board, because it is component of the SoC, yet still I do not see any value in enforcing name. > > >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string >>> + description: >>> + Unique prefixes for the sink/source names of the component, ensuring >>> + distinct identification among multiple instances. >> >> You are duplicating property definitions. This is not needed at all. >> Maybe your schema misses $ref to common schema. >> > > I understand the concern about duplicating property definitions. > In the current file, I have referenced `dai-common` as shown here: > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/microchip%2Csama7g5-i2smcc.yaml#L74C1-L75C27 > > Could you please confirm if this reference is correctly implemented, Yeah, the dai-common $ref is correct, so you should not need it. Do you see any warning? > or suggest any adjustments needed to align with the common schema? I claim nothing has to be done and entire patch is redundant or not much helpful. Your commit msg did not explain *why* this is needed and what problem you are fixing, so what I can say? I don't know why should be aligned because I do not understand the problem being fixed. Best regards, Krzysztof
