Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] ASoC: tas2781: Add tas5832 support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/03/2026 10:37, Xu, Baojun wrote:
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 02 March 2026 17:27
>> To: Xu, Baojun
>> Cc: broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 13916275206@xxxxxxx; Ding, Shenghao; linux-sound@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yi, Ken; Lo, Henry; Chen, Robin; Wang, Will; jim.shil@xxxxxxxxxxx; toastcheng@xxxxxxxxxx; chinkaiting@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] ASoC: tas2781: Add tas5832 support
>>
>> On 02/03/2026 10:22, Xu, Baojun wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: 02 March 2026 16:58
>>>> To: Xu, Baojun
>>>> Cc: broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 13916275206@xxxxxxx; Ding, Shenghao; linux-sound@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yi, Ken; Lo, Henry; Chen, Robin; Wang, Will; jim.shil@xxxxxxxxxxx; toastcheng@xxxxxxxxxx; chinkaiting@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] ASoC: tas2781: Add tas5832 support
>>>>
>>>> On 02/03/2026 09:24, Xu, Baojun wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, tasdevice_id);
>>>>>>>>> @@ -144,6 +145,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id tasdevice_of_match[] = {
>>>>>>>>>       { .compatible = "ti,tas5827" },
>>>>>>>>>       { .compatible = "ti,tas5828" },
>>>>>>>>>       { .compatible = "ti,tas5830" },
>>>>>>>>> +     { .compatible = "ti,tas5832" },
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it is fully compatible with tas5830 and most of the changes here are
>>>>>>>> not needed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it's fully compatible with tas5827/28/30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then above hunk and many others are not needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, because those chips have different on the voltage, so the parameters
>>>>> is different, have to use different firmware binary, so we must identify
>>>>> every chip in the driver.
>>>>
>>>> That would explain other ID tables (and should be briefly mentioned in
>>>> the commit msg), but not this one, because here you do not customize the
>>>> binary at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi, we save the chip_id in the dev_name:
>>> strscpy(tas_priv->dev_name, tasdevice_id[tas_priv->chip_id].name,
>>>       sizeof(tas_priv->dev_name));
>>
>> And where do you see the name in above table?
>>
> Hi, in the patch of first email, I has added "tas5832" in array tasdevice_id.
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-i2c.c b/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-i2c.c
> index 41b89fcc69c3..9228b3b6383b 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-i2c.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-i2c.c
> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id tasdevice_id[] = {
>  	{ "tas5827", TAS5827 },
>  	{ "tas5828", TAS5828 },
>  	{ "tas5830", TAS5830 },
> +	{ "tas5832", TAS5832 },

And was my comment next to this array? No.

You keep bouncing messages without replying to the actual problem. So
let's rephrase it - provide arguments, e.g. logical code flow analysis
coming from human not AI slop, that change I commented under is necessary.

Best regards,
Krzysztof