Re: [PATCH 1/6] ASoC: tegra: Add binding doc for OPE module

[Sameer Pujar]

On 20-05-2022 12:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 18/05/2022 19:36, Sameer Pujar wrote:
> > > > +description: |
> > > > +  The Multi Band Dynamic Range Compressor (MBDRC) is part of Output
> > > > +  Processing Engine (OPE) which interfaces with Audio Hub (AHUB) via
> > > > +  Audio Client Interface (ACIF). MBDRC can be used as a traditional
> > > > +  single full band or a dual band or a multi band dynamic processor.
> > > > +
> > > > +maintainers:
> > > > +  - Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > +  - Mohan Kumar <mkumard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > +  - Sameer Pujar <spujar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  $nodename:
> > > > +    pattern: "^mbdrc@[0-9a-f]*$"
> > > Why? We enforce only generic names in shared schemas and this is neither
> > > shared schema nor is it generic name.
> > Idea was to keep these node names consistent across DT files and parent
> > node can allow a given list of child nodes with strict checks. Does name
> > like "dynamic-range-compressor@xxx"
> The checks are not coming from device node name, but from matching
> schema to compatible. Why do you need consistent names across DTS files?
> They should be anyway generic but what happens if they differ?

The IP is re-used in many Tegra SoC generations and thus it is nice to 
use the same name. But,


> Additionally, the parent schema enforces nodes of children, so if this
> is included in other schema, then the change is pointless.

I see your point. Since parent schema already enforces the child node 
names, another place from child schema to enforce similar rule is not 
really necessary for now. I will drop this. Thanks.