Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 14:33:02 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     "chunxu.li" <chunxu.li@mediatek.com>
Cc:     pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com,
        peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com, daniel.baluta@nxp.com,
        matthias.bgg@gmail.com, yc.hung@mediatek.com,
        tinghan.shen@mediatek.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        project_global_chrome_upstream_group@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: SOF: mediatek: Add .of_machine_select field
 for mt8186
Message-ID: <YuvKjn3cW5im2Yw9@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20220804091359.31449-1-chunxu.li@mediatek.com>
 <20220804091359.31449-3-chunxu.li@mediatek.com>
 <Yuu+elYxBv3xZ1O2@sirena.org.uk>
 <46f972f41a8c1bbfc2bfa42c431308f6b5fe2234.camel@mediatek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6kGedXdUenW5S127"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46f972f41a8c1bbfc2bfa42c431308f6b5fe2234.camel@mediatek.com>
Precedence: bulk


--6kGedXdUenW5S127
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 09:21:37PM +0800, chunxu.li wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-08-04 at 13:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:13:59PM +0800, Chunxu Li wrote:

> > > +		.board = "mediatek,mt8186",
> > > +		.sof_tplg_filename = "sof-mt8186.tplg",

> > The mediatek,mt8186 compatible looks like a SoC compatible not a
> > board
> > compatible...

> Our dts config as below:
> kingler board:
> compatible = "google,corsola", "google,kingler", "mediatek,mt8186";
> krabby board:
> compatible = "google,corsola", "google,krabby", "mediatek,mt8186";

So the SoC is listed as a fallback for the board and things work out
fine.

> Which of the two approaches do you prefer?

I think it would be clearer to keep what's being matched the same but
rename the .board field to be .compatible, or possibly .system_compatible
or something if it's unclear what's being matched.  That'd be more
normal for specifying a compatible string anyway.

--6kGedXdUenW5S127
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmLryo0ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9AV2wf+P1McXNe47oxC4pSkB6Vp8RnE2YJLp73cxmN6fQR0tXycCwlIB4nTYrWt
C7H/h1k9T+ARv2785fTMpykEQmPUjhdAQW5TXdewWzvoey37H03oE1SkpJrqKsVh
VMDX+njYEvDzi3OL+D/JMxPVCzPQnnk8SwSRo8KUV4yxaLCZ5aJEQ73hXL7kwkYT
EK+KjGM010dcK8X79ZGDBE/0N5UgOWTbWw4WpQH6mNCzAcMhmiCCS48t25W+5fXj
BT05BMe4/RSuo6Q3Oznve6xsfjhPkAC9/bdvDszSagBZDrOuqq0Zt0gh3LayI60O
5LASb2bTbtSyzAys/ISEh1xt+33Tfw==
=AqQy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6kGedXdUenW5S127--