On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:28 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2025, 16:30:35 CET schrieb Alexey Charkov:
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 2:01 PM Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alexey,
> > >
> > > Am Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2025, 10:09:07 CET schrieb Alexey Charkov:
> > > > RK3588s has four SPDIF transmitters, and the full RK3588 has six.
> > > > They are fully compatible to RK3568 ones. Add respective nodes
> > > > to .dtsi files.
> > >
> > > While it may seem that way, we still want soc-specific compatibles,
> > > to future-proof this.
> > >
> > > I.e. going the the
> > > compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-spdif", "rockchip,rk3568-spdif";
> > > way, so that now things can just match against the rk3568, but if some
> > > fault emerges later on the code can be fixed with the DT staying just
> > > compatible.
> > >
> > > The spdif also has an example already for all the spdif variants that are
> > > compatible to the rk3066 [3], so it'd need another "items" block for things
> > > being compatible with the rk3568.
> >
> > Hmm, if we are to believe the driver ([4], [5]), they are all the same
> > as the good old RK3366, which in turn is software compatible to the
> > good old RK3066. Same seems to apply to RK3576, given that its current
> > .dtsi just references the "rockchip,rk3568-spdif" compatible.
>
> I was for a short while afraid that something slipped into mainline :-)
> But I guess that "rockchip,rk3568-spdif" compatible on the rk3576 is
> only used in the vendor-kernel.
Sorry, didn't mean to give you a heart attack :-)
> > Does it mean that the binding needs to be restructured so that the
> > required fallback compatible ("rockchip,rk3066-spdif") applies to all
> > variants? Or shall the existing ones be left alone, and just RK3588
> > and RK3576 added inside that "items" block?
>
> I noticed that the spdif binding has had an interestings growth over
> the years, with some socs being outliers.
>
> I wouldn't change the whole binding, especially as that then touches
> established stuff.
Noted, thanks.
> The question would be weather to add the rk3588 + rk3576 to the
> existing enum marking them as compatible with the rk3066, or create
> a separate items block and just saying the rk3588-spdif is compatible with
> the rk3568 one, like:
>
> [...]
> - const: rockchip,rk3568-spdif
> - items:
> - enum:
> - rockchip,rk3128-spdif
> - rockchip,rk3188-spdif
> - rockchip,rk3288-spdif
> - rockchip,rk3308-spdif
> - const: rockchip,rk3066-spdif
> - items:
> - enum:
> - rockchip,rk3576-spdif
> - rockchip,rk3588-spdif
> - const: rockchip,rk3568-spdif
> [...]
>
> With the RK3066 being released in 2012, part of me is amazed that that
> block survived that long, on the other hand going with the above snippet
> somehow feels saver ;-) .
Let me first submit a short series dealing with RK3588 alone, as
that's the only one I can test at the moment.
Best,
Alexey
