On 25/10/2023 08:17, Sebastian Fricke wrote: > Hey Krzysztof, > > On 24.10.2023 09:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 24/10/2023 07:17, Sebastian Fricke wrote: >> >>>>>> It needs an SoC specific compatible (TI something...) as well (or >>>>>> instead). Unless there's a public spec with details on how many >>>>>> clocks, resets, interrupts, etc. there are. >>>>> >>>>> Okay so how about this, a bit similar to the Coda driver supplying both >>>>> a general option and a SoC specific version: >>>> >>>> Can generic compatible be used alone in board designs? If it is licensed >>>> block, then most likely you want a fallback. >>> >>> Alright, so a fallback seems appropriate, how do you like this? >>> >>> properties: >>> compatible: >>> items: >>> - enum: >>> - const: ti,k3-j721sX-wave521c >>> - const: cnm,wave521c >>> >>> Providing a fallback and adding a enum which can be extended later on. >> >> This looks almost good. I wonder what is "j721sX" - Google does not find >> it. There is thouhg j721se. > > Well that was a misunderstanding from my side I thought that both j721se > and j721s2 have the Wave5 IP block and wanted to describe both with > j721sX. But as it turns out the IP block isn't present on j721se. It does not matter. You must not have wildcards in compatibles. > Additionally, I was only able to test the codec on j721s2 for now and so > I would opt for calling it: `ti,k3-j721s2-wave521c` Best regards, Krzysztof
