Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: sound: Add ti,tas675x
From: Sen Wang
Date: Fri Apr 03 2026 - 23:40:42 EST
On 4/3/26 02:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 03/04/2026 02:40, Sen Wang wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/ti,tas675x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/ti,tas675x.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..23e4cc77b4ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/ti,tas675x.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,278 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/sound/ti,tas675x.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Texas Instruments TAS675x Audio Amplifier
+
+maintainers:
+ - Sen Wang <sen@xxxxxx>
+
+description: |
Do not need '|' unless you need to preserve formatting.
+ The TAS675x family (TAS6754, TAS67524) are four-channel, digital-input,
And devices are not compatible?
They're compatible, and I didn't have any differentiators for this
initial driver. So I should only keep one.
And also rename ti,tas675x.yaml to ti,tas67524.yaml.
No, you should express compatibility. See writing bindings, writing
schema, example schema docs or DTS101 talk.
Thank you for clarifying Krzysztof, DTS101 talk is immensely helpful.
Regarding the compatibles, if I use ti,tas67524 as a fallback:
compatible:
oneOf:
- items:
- enum:
- ti,tas6754
- const: ti,tas67524
- const: ti,tas67524
Does this look correct? I've also seen some bindings use 'enum' even for single values under oneOf, but I'm assuming 'const' is preferred for single entries as advocated in the example schema?
Also, my apologies for the premature v3 series; Sorry for the noise. Lesson learned and will only send a proper v4 once all discussions are settled.
Best Regards,
Sen Wang
Best regards,
Krzysztof