lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 5/6] dt-bindings: media: wave5: add yaml devicetree bindings
From
On 04/09/2023 08:25, Sebastian Fricke wrote:

>>> + sram:
>>
>> Missing vendor prefix.
>
> After some discussion with the the manufacturer of this CODEC chip, the SRAM
> is not fixed to the CODEC chip but instead part of the SoC, thus the
> vendor can vary. It sounds like the policy is to use the vendor prefix
> of the SoC, that was used for upstreaming. But that policy sounds a bit
> like a potential for future confusion to me, so I wanted to ask what you
> would like to see. The SoC we develop on is from TI and the CODEC chip is from
> C&M, so I could either call it: `ti,sram` or `cnm,sram`

I meant vendor prefix of this device. It does not matter what SoC is
that, however it turns out it is already a generic property, so no
vendor prefix is needed if you use the same property - phandle points to
a node which is a sram.yaml.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-09-04 09:53    [W:0.081 / U:1.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site