[PATCH v11 2/3] ASoC: qcom: dt-bindings: Add sc7180 machine bindings

[Cheng-yi Chiang]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 10:55 PM Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20/10/2020 15:37, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I don't understand what "logic scattered in various dtsi files" means,
> > sorry.
> >
> >> Yes, that should work to describe the dailink we are using.
> >> But a more tricky issue is how to do calls like setting PLL in dai startup ops.
> > ...
> >
> >> I think that asking a generic machine driver to do configuration like
> >> this with only a limited interface of device property
> >> might be too much of an ask for the machine driver.
> > Richard was looking at some basic configuration for PLLs.
> >
> >> Would you mind if I simplify the compatible string like Srinivas
> >> suggested, and send a v12?
> >> As for other two kinds of variations that I am aware of:
> >> 1. front mic / rear mic
> >> 2. replace alc5682 with adau7002
> > The CODEC change is going to be described in the DT no matter what -
> > you'll have a reference to the CODEC node but it may make sense if
> > there's enough custom code around it.  For front vs rear mic the
> > simplest thing would just be to not mention which if this is a hardware
> > fixed thing, otherwise a control.
> >
> >> We can set different board names and different compatible strings to
> >> achieve such variation.
> >> So that it would make sense to describe configuration in compatible
> >> strings like you suggested, and also provides UCM a way to distinguish
> >> different boards.
> > I don't recall having suggested distinguishing these things with a
> > compatible string, especially not the microphones.  UCM can already use
> > the display names for the boards to distinguish things.
>
>
> Not with the compatible string!
>
> Currently card name, and long name are exactly same in all Qualcomm
> soundcards, which makes it very difficult to identify how those boards
> re wired up at UCM2 level. So the plan is to properly populate card long
> name with "model" property which can include details on how things are
> wiredup on that board.
>
> --srini

Hi Srini,
Thanks for taking a look.
Let me try to clarify your comments in case there is any misunderstanding.

I understand your request on having different board variations using
different sound card names through model property, and I totally agree
with that.
As for compatible strings, do you insist on having all the board
variations using exactly the same compatible string ?

Thanks!