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@linaro.org
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 one is a must, but the question why duplicating the entries and not using fallback?
Best regards, Krzysztof