Re: [PATCH v7 4/4] ASoc: dt-bindings: PCM6240: Add initial DT binding

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 31/03/2024 04:18, Shenghao Ding wrote:
> PCM6240 family chips are popular among audio customers, in spite of only a
> portion of the functionality of codec, such as ADC or DAC, and so on, for
> different Specifications, range from Personal Electric to Automotive
> Electric, even some professional fields. Yet their audio performance is far
> superior to the codec's, and cost is lower than codec, and much easier to
> program than codec.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shenghao Ding <shenghao-ding@xxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> Change in v7:
>  - Rewrite the subject to match something similar to other commits.
>  - And none of them are compatible with something.
>  - minItems, then maxItems.
>  - Drop reset-gpios description
>  - Remove the repeated reg descriptions and reg constraints.
>  - Drop redundant spaces.
>  - Add missing line breaks between blocks and additionalProperties.
>  - Correct compatibility issue on adc6120 and pcm6240.
>  - All these chips have only a portion of the functionality of codec,
>    such as ADC or DAC, and so on, but their audio performance is far
>    superior to the codec's, and cost is lower than codec, and much easier
>    to program than codec. Simply one or two register settings can enable
>    them to work. Init for these chips are hardware reset or software reset.
>    As to some audio filter params for internal filters, it is up to the
>    special user cases, which can be saved into the bin file. The default
>    value also can work well.
>  - Add blank line before reg.
>  - remove unneeded items and if branches.
>  - Add missing compatible devices, such as adc6120, etc.
>  - Add necessary people into the list for DTS review
>  - correct misaligned.
>  - simplify the compatibility
>  - remove sound-name-prefix and revert back
>  - Add review information

All these changes in v7 and you still kept Rob's review? I think either
review was not given or your changelog is just incorrect.



Best regards,
Krzysztof