From: "Mark Brown" <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, 17 May, 2024 13:11:43 > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 05:05:41AM -0400, Elinor Montmasson wrote: >> From: "Mark Brown" <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > This description (and the code) don't feel like they're actually generic >> > - they're clearly specific to the bidrectional S/PDIF case. I'd expect >> > something called -generic to cope with single CODECs as well as double, >> > and not to have any constraints on what those are. > >> I proposed, in an reply of the v3 patch series to Krzysztof Kozlowski, >> the compatible "fsl,imx-audio-no-codec" instead of "generic". >> Krzysztof thought it was too generic, but it would convey more clearly >> that it is for cases without codec driver. >> Would this other compatible string be more appropriate ? > > No. There is very clearly a CODEC here, it physically exists, we can > point at it on the board and it has a software representation. Your > code is also very specific to the two CODEC case. Then maybe it's not be a good idea to make this compatible generic for this contribution. The original intention is to bring support for the S/PDIF, so maybe the contribution should focus on this use case? In that case, would changing the compatible for "fsl,imx-audio-spdif-card" be acceptable? "fsl,imx-audio-spdif" is already used for the `imx-spdif.c` which does not use the ASRC.
