Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ASOC: Unify code style for platform_device_id arrays

[Cezary Rojewski]

On 7/23/2026 7:30 AM, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> Hello Cezary,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 07:55:26PM +0200, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> > On 7/20/2026 8:23 AM, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> >
> > >    sound/soc/au1x/db1200.c                |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/codecs/adau7118-hw.c         |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/codecs/bt-sco.c              | 10 +++-------
> > >    sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c             |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/fsl/imx-pcm-rpmsg.c          |  6 +++---
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/da7219.c    |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/dmic.c      |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/es8336.c    |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/hdaudio.c   |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/i2s_test.c  |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/max98357a.c |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/max98373.c  |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/max98927.c  |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/nau8825.c   |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/pcm3168a.c  |  6 ++----
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/probe.c     |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt274.c     |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt286.c     |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt298.c     |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5514.c    |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5640.c    |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5663.c    |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5682.c    |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/ssm4567.c   |  2 +-
> > >    sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c                |  2 +-
> >
> > This change is outstanding when compared to patches 1-4 which follow the
> > per-driver approach.  I'd expect one driver per scope e.g.: Intel's avs
> > split away from the rest.
>
> Well, patches 1 and 2 primarily follow the one patch per type of change
> approach that happen to only affect one driver each. In the v1 thread I
> was asked to split out split out the amd/acp bits which resulted in
> patches 3 and 4. (And just now I notice you also replied and asked to
> split out intel/avs, too, which I missed. Sorry!)
>
> Conceptually I think one commit per driver is the right approach[1] but
> most maintainers/reviewers seem to favour one commit adapting one thing
> for all drivers in a subsystem. And in my experience no matter how you
> make it, you get a reply to change.

Couldn't agree more with the last one.  Happens to us all :)

> Will split out intel/avs for v3 and maybe hit the sweet spot then.
Thank you.