Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 May 2022 12:16:29 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] ASoC: tegra: Add binding doc for OPE module | From | Sameer Pujar <> |
| |
On 20-05-2022 12:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 18/05/2022 19:36, Sameer Pujar wrote: >>>> +description: | >>>> + The Multi Band Dynamic Range Compressor (MBDRC) is part of Output >>>> + Processing Engine (OPE) which interfaces with Audio Hub (AHUB) via >>>> + Audio Client Interface (ACIF). MBDRC can be used as a traditional >>>> + single full band or a dual band or a multi band dynamic processor. >>>> + >>>> +maintainers: >>>> + - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> >>>> + - Mohan Kumar <mkumard@nvidia.com> >>>> + - Sameer Pujar <spujar@nvidia.com> >>>> + >>>> +properties: >>>> + $nodename: >>>> + pattern: "^mbdrc@[0-9a-f]*$" >>> Why? We enforce only generic names in shared schemas and this is neither >>> shared schema nor is it generic name. >> Idea was to keep these node names consistent across DT files and parent >> node can allow a given list of child nodes with strict checks. Does name >> like "dynamic-range-compressor@xxx" > The checks are not coming from device node name, but from matching > schema to compatible. Why do you need consistent names across DTS files? > They should be anyway generic but what happens if they differ?
The IP is re-used in many Tegra SoC generations and thus it is nice to use the same name. But,
> Additionally, the parent schema enforces nodes of children, so if this > is included in other schema, then the change is pointless.
I see your point. Since parent schema already enforces the child node names, another place from child schema to enforce similar rule is not really necessary for now. I will drop this. Thanks.
| |