On 09/09/2024 14:28, Andrei.Simion@microchip.com wrote:
minItems: 1
- sound-name-prefix:
- pattern: "^I2SMCC[0-9]$"
This does not look correct. Name/prefix can be anything matching real hardware, why are you restricting it? How can you predict all names?
Based on the datasheet, the SoC(s) have the following naming conventions:
- sama7g5: I2SMCC0 and I2SMCC1
- sam9x60/sam9x75: I2SMCC
To accommodate these variations, I propose using a more relaxed pattern: "^I2SMCC(0-9)?$". This pattern allows for both the fixed prefix and an optional single digit at the end. What are your thoughts on this approach?
I understand this does not differ per board, because it is component of the SoC, yet still I do not see any value in enforcing name.
- $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string
- description:
Unique prefixes for the sink/source names of the component, ensuringdistinct identification among multiple instances.You are duplicating property definitions. This is not needed at all. Maybe your schema misses $ref to common schema.
I understand the concern about duplicating property definitions. In the current file, I have referenced `dai-common` as shown here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindi...
Could you please confirm if this reference is correctly implemented,
Yeah, the dai-common $ref is correct, so you should not need it. Do you see any warning?
or suggest any adjustments needed to align with the common schema?
I claim nothing has to be done and entire patch is redundant or not much helpful. Your commit msg did not explain *why* this is needed and what problem you are fixing, so what I can say? I don't know why should be aligned because I do not understand the problem being fixed.
Best regards, Krzysztof