On 28/11/2023 10:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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.
Ok
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
Thanks,
Neil
