On 23/01/2024 16:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:25:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/01/2024 12:14, Shenghao Ding wrote:
>
>>> ---
>>> Change in v1:
>>> - Create yaml file for pcm6240 codec driver
>
>> I don't understand. v1 is the first version. Against what is this change?
>
> This appears to be a perfectly clear description of the contents of the
> first version, it's a change against the tree before the patch is
> applied. It's a bit unusual to include a per version changelog on the
> first version but not a problem.
>
>>> + enum:
>>> + - ti,adc3120
>>> + - ti,adc5120
>>> + - ti,adc6120
>>> + - ti,dix4192
>>> + - ti,pcm1690
>>> + - ti,pcm3120
>>> + - ti,pcm3140
>>> + - ti,pcm5120
>>> + - ti,pcm5140
>>> + - ti,pcm6120
>>> + - ti,pcm6140
>>> + - ti,pcm6240
>>> + - ti,pcm6260
>>> + - ti,pcm9211
>>> + - ti,pcmd3140
>>> + - ti,pcmd3180
>>> + - ti,pcmd512x
>>> + - ti,taa5212
>>> + - ti,taa5412
>>> + - ti,tad5212
>>> + - ti,tad5412
>
>> And none of them are compatible with something?
>
> No idea about these specific chips but that would be entirely normal for
> CODECs, even where things are subsets there's often some tweaks needed
> to initialisation or whatever.
I want to double check with the author.
>
>>> + two: pcmdevice@48 {
>
>> Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of
>> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
>> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
>
> Please be more specific about what you're looking to see there.
> pcmdevice doesn't seem particularly more specific than something like
> dsp, it certainly seems within what the text describes.
pcm, codec, audio-codec
"device" seems redundant, because almost everything is some sort of device.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
