ASoC: samsung: Mark unused Odroid compatibles as deprecated
Subsystems (3)
PATCH v2 1/1 ASoC: samsung: Mark unused Odroid compatibles as deprecated
Compatible for XU4 audio is not being used. Instead the board uses the same compatible as XU3. The devices are now just compatible so they should use the same value. Mark "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" as being deprecated so in this future could be removed to limit useless properties.
Additionally add older compatibles appearing in the bindings.
---
Changes since v1:
1. Correct typo XU4->XU3 for one deprecated compatible.
--- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/samsung,odroid.txt | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/samsung,odroid.txt +3 -1
@@ -3,7 +3,9 @@ Samsung Exynos Odroid XU3/XU4 audio complex with MAX98090 codec Required properties: - compatible - "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for Odroid XU3 board, - "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board + "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board (deprecated), + "samsung,odroid-xu3-audio" - for Odroid XU3 board (deprecated), + "samsung,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board (deprecated) - model - the user-visible name of this sound complex - clocks - should contain entries matching clock names in the clock-names property
Signature · 1 line
2.14.1
Mark Brown
maintainerApplied "ASoC: samsung: Mark unused Odroid compatibles as deprecated" to the asoc tree
The patch
ASoC: samsung: Mark unused Odroid compatibles as deprecated
has been applied to the asoc tree at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail.
Thanks,
Mark
Quoted 1 line
From
3b84574d95c020f01410ff2ca0a38dd8fd7b644bMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:35:12 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] ASoC: samsung: Mark unused Odroid compatibles as deprecated
Compatible for XU4 audio is not being used. Instead the board uses the same compatible as XU3. The devices are now just compatible so they should use the same value. Mark "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" as being deprecated so in this future could be removed to limit useless properties.
Additionally add older compatibles appearing in the bindings.
--- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/samsung,odroid.txt | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/samsung,odroid.txt +3 -1
@@ -3,7 +3,9 @@ Samsung Exynos Odroid XU3/XU4 audio complex with MAX98090 codec Required properties: - compatible - "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for Odroid XU3 board, - "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board + "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board (deprecated), + "samsung,odroid-xu3-audio" - for Odroid XU3 board (deprecated), + "samsung,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board (deprecated) - model - the user-visible name of this sound complex - clocks - should contain entries matching clock names in the clock-names property
Signature · 1 line
2.16.2
Sylwester Nawrocki
maintainerQuoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Compatible for XU4 audio is not being used. Instead the board uses the same compatible as XU3. The devices are now just compatible so they should use the same value. Mark "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" as being deprecated so in this future could be removed to limit useless properties.
It doesn't feel right to obsolete the "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" compatible, there is significant difference between XU3 and XU4 - there is no audio CODEC on XU4, this board only supports audio over HDMI interface. XU4 could be compatible with XU3, but not the other way around. It just happens we have other DT properties that help to handle such HW design difference.
Moreover, only XU4 is still in production and should be in few more years [1], others are obsoleted now.
So I think we should keep at least these 2 compatible strings:
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for boards with audio CODEC,
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for boards without audio CODEC, supporting only HDMI interface.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
Quoted 7 lines · Sylwester Nawrocki
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Compatible for XU4 audio is not being used. Instead the board uses the same compatible as XU3. The devices are now just compatible so they should use the same value. Mark "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" as being deprecated so in this future could be removed to limit useless properties.
Quoted 6 lines
It doesn't feel right to obsolete the "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" compatible, there is significant difference between XU3 and XU4 - there is no audio CODEC on XU4, this board only supports audio over HDMI interface. XU4 could be compatible with XU3, but not the other way around. It just happens we have other DT properties that help to handle such HW design difference.
The compatible does not describe physical differences. It does not mean that devices are the same. In this case they are just coming from the same family and they operate the same, from the bindings perspective.
The XU4 binding is not being used. Adding a compatible which is not used in the moment of adding is a proof that this compatible is not needed. It is just a duplicate. There is no point of adding duplicates.
Quoted 3 lines
Moreover, only XU4 is still in production and should be in few more years [1], others are obsoleted now.
It is not a problem. Whether device is manufactured or not, does not reflect what bindings we are using. Deprecated XU4 compatible does not mean that XU4 itself is deprecated. Just this compatible should not be used for new DTS.
Quoted 6 lines
So I think we should keep at least these 2 compatible strings:
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for boards with audio CODEC,
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for boards without audio CODEC, supporting only HDMI interface.
Yeah, and then we inflate this list into X, X2, U3, HC1 and all others which are the same. And then we should add XU3-lite (it is different device). This goes to some nonsense. Compatible is not for each device but for family even though there are differences between specific devices.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Sylwester Nawrocki
maintainerQuoted 16 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 7 lines · Sylwester Nawrocki
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Compatible for XU4 audio is not being used. Instead the board uses the same compatible as XU3. The devices are now just compatible so they should use the same value. Mark "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" as being deprecated so in this future could be removed to limit useless properties.
Quoted 6 lines
It doesn't feel right to obsolete the "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" compatible, there is significant difference between XU3 and XU4 - there is no audio CODEC on XU4, this board only supports audio over HDMI interface. XU4 could be compatible with XU3, but not the other way around. It just happens we have other DT properties that help to handle such HW design difference.
Quoted 6 lines
The compatible does not describe physical differences. It does not mean that devices are the same. In this case they are just coming from the same family and they operate the same, from the bindings perspective.
From the ePAPR 'compatible' string definition you cited, the compatible
string is supposed to indicate programming model of a device, for the purpose of matching a driver. I thought the programming model refers to the driver's SW interfaces used to control the hardware, rather than only to a particular DT binding design. And XU4 is not compatible with XU3 from device programming perspective.
Quoted 4 lines
The XU4 binding is not being used. Adding a compatible which is not used in the moment of adding is a proof that this compatible is not needed. It is just a duplicate. There is no point of adding duplicates.
I disagree it is just an unnecessary duplicate, I think dts for XU4 could fixed instead of dropping that compatible from the binding.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Moreover, only XU4 is still in production and should be in few more years [1], others are obsoleted now.
It is not a problem. Whether device is manufactured or not, does not reflect what bindings we are using. Deprecated XU4 compatible does not mean that XU4 itself is deprecated. Just this compatible should not be used for new DTS.
Quoted 5 lines
So I think we should keep at least these 2 compatible strings:
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for boards with audio CODEC,
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for boards without audio CODEC, supporting only HDMI interface.
Quoted 5 lines
Yeah, and then we inflate this list into X, X2, U3, HC1 and all others which are the same. And then we should add XU3-lite (it is different device). This goes to some nonsense. Compatible is not for each device but for family even though there are differences between specific devices.
You are not listening, I refer only to major audio subsystem differences. It would have been:
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" for: U2, U3, X, X2, XU, XU3, XU3-Lite
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" for: XU4
But if you insist on only one compatible I'm not going to argue further, you will be responsible for this. :)
Signature · 2 lines
Regards, Sylwester
Quoted 17 lines · Sylwester Nawrocki
Quoted 16 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 13 lines · Sylwester Nawrocki
Quoted 5 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Compatible for XU4 audio is not being used. Instead the board uses the same compatible as XU3. The devices are now just compatible so they should use the same value. Mark "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" as being deprecated so in this future could be removed to limit useless properties.
It doesn't feel right to obsolete the "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" compatible, there is significant difference between XU3 and XU4 - there is no audio CODEC on XU4, this board only supports audio over HDMI interface. XU4 could be compatible with XU3, but not the other way around. It just happens we have other DT properties that help to handle such HW design difference.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The compatible does not describe physical differences. It does not mean that devices are the same. In this case they are just coming from the same family and they operate the same, from the bindings perspective.
From the ePAPR 'compatible' string definition you cited, the compatible string is supposed to indicate programming model of a device, for the purpose of matching a driver.
Yes, you're correct, it refers to programming model. Although later you will find second explanation (chapter 4): "The compatible property of a device node describes the specific binding (or bindings) to which the node complies.".
Quoted 4 lines
I thought the programming model refers to the driver's
SW interfaces used to control the hardware, rather than only to a particular DT binding design. And XU4 is not compatible with XU3 from device programming perspective.
The programming models of XU4 and XU3 audio components, to which we refer now and which are implemented/used, are the same. I mean not the same in general, but how we use them. The used subset of each is the same. Therefore the binding and the driver do not distinguish any differences (like codec).
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The XU4 binding is not being used. Adding a compatible which is not used in the moment of adding is a proof that this compatible is not needed. It is just a duplicate. There is no point of adding duplicates.
I disagree it is just an unnecessary duplicate, I think dts for XU4 could fixed instead of dropping that compatible from the binding.
You know, there is nothing to fix - changing the compatible to XU4 will not change anything. The executed code will be exactly the same...
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Moreover, only XU4 is still in production and should be in few more years [1], others are obsoleted now.
It is not a problem. Whether device is manufactured or not, does not reflect what bindings we are using. Deprecated XU4 compatible does not mean that XU4 itself is deprecated. Just this compatible should not be used for new DTS.
Quoted 5 lines
So I think we should keep at least these 2 compatible strings:
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for boards with audio CODEC,
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for boards without audio CODEC, supporting only HDMI interface.Quoted 5 lines
Yeah, and then we inflate this list into X, X2, U3, HC1 and all others which are the same. And then we should add XU3-lite (it is different device). This goes to some nonsense. Compatible is not for each device but for family even though there are differences between specific devices.
Quoted 8 lines
You are not listening, I refer only to major audio subsystem differences. It would have been:
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" for: U2, U3, X, X2, XU, XU3, XU3-Lite
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" for: XU4But if you insist on only one compatible I'm not going to argue further, you will be responsible for this. :)
Ah, I read too fast and missed that point. Actually that is nice consensus in this case.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Sylwester Nawrocki
maintainerQuoted 12 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 10 lines · Sylwester Nawrocki
Quoted 8 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 1 line · Sylwester Nawrocki
On 03/18/2018 04:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
The compatible does not describe physical differences. It does not mean that devices are the same. In this case they are just coming from the same family and they operate the same, from the bindings perspective.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
From the ePAPR 'compatible' string definition you cited, the compatible string is supposed to indicate programming model of a device, for the purpose of matching a driver.
Yes, you're correct, it refers to programming model. Although later you will find second explanation (chapter 4): "The compatible property of a device node describes the specific binding (or bindings) to which the node complies.".
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I thought the programming model refers to the driver's
SW interfaces used to control the hardware, rather than only to a particular DT binding design. And XU4 is not compatible with XU3 from device programming perspective.The programming models of XU4 and XU3 audio components, to which we refer now and which are implemented/used, are the same. I mean not the same in general, but how we use them. The used subset of each is the same. Therefore the binding and the driver do not distinguish any differences (like codec).
Actually the driver has to determine the number of codecs, as one of them requires additional configuration steps. But this is currently being taken care of by looking at number of entries in one of the properties.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The XU4 binding is not being used. Adding a compatible which is not used in the moment of adding is a proof that this compatible is not needed. It is just a duplicate. There is no point of adding duplicates.
I disagree it is just an unnecessary duplicate, I think dts for XU4 could fixed instead of dropping that compatible from the binding.
You know, there is nothing to fix - changing the compatible to XU4 will not change anything. The executed code will be exactly the same...
Right, there is really no need now for another compatible as the differences across boards are handled through additional properties.
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 5 lines
So I think we should keep at least these 2 compatible strings:
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for boards with audio CODEC,
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for boards without audio CODEC, supporting only HDMI interface.Yeah, and then we inflate this list into X, X2, U3, HC1 and all others which are the same. And then we should add XU3-lite (it is different device). This goes to some nonsense. Compatible is not for each device but for family even though there are differences between specific devices.
You are not listening, I refer only to major audio subsystem differences. It would have been:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" for: U2, U3, X, X2, XU, XU3, XU3-Lite
- "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" for: XU4But if you insist on only one compatible I'm not going to argue further, you will be responsible for this. :)
Ah, I read too fast and missed that point. Actually that is nice consensus in this case.
As Mark said, it is not essential what we decide here, my preference was to keep these 2 compatibles. I might got confused a bit and did not consider a more feature complete "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" binding being applied to a XU4 device supporting only a subset of functionality.
Signature · 2 lines
Regards, Sylwester
Sylwester Nawrocki
maintainerDocumentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/samsung,odroid.txt Samsung Exynos Odroid XU3/XU4 audio complex with MAX98090 codec · line 8
Quoted 12 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/samsung,odroid.txt +3
-1@@ -3,7 +3,9 @@ Samsung Exynos Odroid XU3/XU4 audio complex with MAX98090 codec Required properties: - compatible - "hardkernel,odroid-xu3-audio" - for Odroid XU3 board, - "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board + "hardkernel,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board (deprecated), + "samsung,odroid-xu3-audio" - for Odroid XU3 board (deprecated), + "samsung,odroid-xu4-audio" - for Odroid XU4 board (deprecated)
I think we should make it clear which compatible applies to which board.
Signature · 2 lines
Thanks, Sylwester