Re: [PATCH 2/5] ASoC: dt-bindings: document WCD939x Audio Codec

[neil . armstrong]

On 28/11/2023 10:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/11/2023 10:14, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx 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