Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:19:12 +0100 | From | neil.armstrong@linaro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] ASoC: dt-bindings: document WCD939x Audio Codec |
| |
On 28/11/2023 10:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28/11/2023 10:14, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote: >>> >>> Here the device exposes its version in registers, so you can easily rely >>> on the compatibility. That's also the case multiple times talked on the >>> mailing lists. >> >> ... you're right here version can be determined at runtime. >> >> But, since both are compatible, there's no primary part number, right? >> >> so why use "qcom,wcd9395-codec", "qcom,wcd9390-codec" > > This one, please.
Ok
> >> when "qcom,wcd9390-codec", "qcom,wcd9395-codec" should >> also be valid, so in this can why not use : > > Could be valid, sure, but we are humans and we treat higher number as > something newer or bigger, thus previous one feels more natural. There > are examples of this way, though. > > >> "qcom,wcd9390-codec", "qcom,wcd939x-codec" >> or >> "qcom,wcd9395-codec", "qcom,wcd939x-codec" > > This not, because wildcards are not allowed in the compatibles. In the > past there were examples how a wildcard stopped being wild, so guideline > is: just don't use them. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
Thanks, Neil
| |