On 04/09/2023 08:25, Sebastian Fricke wrote: >>> + sram: >> >> Missing vendor prefix. > > After some discussion with the the manufacturer of this CODEC chip, the SRAM > is not fixed to the CODEC chip but instead part of the SoC, thus the > vendor can vary. It sounds like the policy is to use the vendor prefix > of the SoC, that was used for upstreaming. But that policy sounds a bit > like a potential for future confusion to me, so I wanted to ask what you > would like to see. The SoC we develop on is from TI and the CODEC chip is from > C&M, so I could either call it: `ti,sram` or `cnm,sram` I meant vendor prefix of this device. It does not matter what SoC is that, however it turns out it is already a generic property, so no vendor prefix is needed if you use the same property - phandle points to a node which is a sram.yaml. Best regards, Krzysztof
