On 31/08/2022 12:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 31/08/2022 12:17, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18/08/2022 18:12, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>> Add compatible for sm8450 and sc8280xp.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c b/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c
>>>> index 27da6c6c3c5a..f82c297ea3ab 100644
>>>> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c
>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/lpass-wsa-macro.c
>>>> @@ -2561,6 +2561,8 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops wsa_macro_pm_ops = {
>>>> static const struct of_device_id wsa_macro_dt_match[] = {
>>>> {.compatible = "qcom,sc7280-lpass-wsa-macro"},
>>>> {.compatible = "qcom,sm8250-lpass-wsa-macro"},
>>>> + {.compatible = "qcom,sm8450-lpass-wsa-macro"},
>>>> + {.compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-lpass-wsa-macro" },
>>>
>>> Looks like these are backwards compatible with the existing versions,
>>> why not reflect that in the binding?
>> Backward compatibility is not always true, some of the registers and
>> there defaults tend to change across SoCs. Having SoC specific
>> compatible could help us deal with this and also make code more inline
>> with other codec macros in LPASS IP.
>
> I am not saying that there should be no SoC specific compatible. This
s/I am/We are/
I really thought that it was my comment. :)
> one is a must, but the question why duplicating the entries and not
> using fallback?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
