On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:38:10PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:42:18PM +0800, Xing Zheng wrote:
>
>> > +sound {
>> > + compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-gru-sound";
>> > + rockchip,cpu = <&i2s0>;
>> > + rockchip,codec = <&max98357a &rt5514 &da7219>;
>
>> These seem fairly standard though a variety of versions in the bindings.
>> Can we use audio-codec and audio-cpu (or cpu or audio-dai) here? Mark?
>
> Well, the roles aren't actually that standard (the fact that there's
> multiple CODECs and one CPU DAI here is really odd and definitely needs
> a very system specific interpretation). If they were standard we
> already have the simple-card binding that things should be using.
> There's no point in standard property names if the interpretation has to
> be non-standard.
Okay, I agree with the system specific interpretation part. However, I
don't think using simple-card or not determines using common
properties.
> The vendor specific prefixes are there because all bindings are supposed
> to add prefixes to property names.
...unless they are common.
Rob
