On 25/10/2023 08:17, Sebastian Fricke wrote:

Hey Krzysztof,

On 24.10.2023 09:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 24/10/2023 07:17, Sebastian Fricke wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

It needs an SoC specific compatible (TI something...) as well (or
instead). Unless there's a public spec with details on how many
clocks, resets, interrupts, etc. there are.

Okay so how about this, a bit similar to the Coda driver supplying both
a general option and a SoC specific version:

Can generic compatible be used alone in board designs? If it is licensed
block, then most likely you want a fallback.

Alright, so a fallback seems appropriate, how do you like this?

properties:
   compatible:
     items:
       - enum:
           - const: ti,k3-j721sX-wave521c
       - const: cnm,wave521c

Providing a fallback and adding a enum which can be extended later on.

This looks almost good. I wonder what is "j721sX" - Google does not find
it. There is thouhg j721se.

Well that was a misunderstanding from my side I thought that both j721se
and j721s2 have the Wave5 IP block and wanted to describe both with
j721sX. But as it turns out the IP block isn't present on j721se.

It does not matter. You must not have wildcards in compatibles.

Additionally, I was only able to test the codec on j721s2 for now and so
I would opt for calling it: `ti,k3-j721s2-wave521c`

Best regards,
Krzysztof


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel