On 09.09.2024 11:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
On 09/09/2024 10:35, Andrei Simion wrote:
From: Codrin Ciubotariu codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com
Add 'sound-name-prefix' property to differentiate between interfaces in DPCM use-cases. Property is optional.
[andrei.simion@microchip.com: Adjust the commit title and message. Reword the description for 'sound-name-prefix'.]
Signed-off-by: Codrin Ciubotariu codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com Signed-off-by: Andrei Simion andrei.simion@microchip.com
.../bindings/sound/microchip,sama7g5-i2smcc.yaml | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/microchip,sama7g5-i2smcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/microchip,sama7g5-i2smcc.yaml index fb630a184350..ad34df67c7c0 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/microchip,sama7g5-i2smcc.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/microchip,sama7g5-i2smcc.yaml @@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ properties: - const: gclk 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?
- $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, or suggest any adjustments needed to align with the common schema?
Best Regards, Andrei Simion
Best regards, Krzysztof