[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: dts: meson: add SM1 soundcard name to VIM3L
Christian Hewitt <> writes:

>> On 2 Oct 2020, at 6:44 pm, Jerome Brunet <> wrote:
>> On Fri 02 Oct 2020 at 16:16, Christian Hewitt <> wrote:
>>> VIM3L now inherits the sound node from the VIM3 common dtsi but is
>>> an SM1 device, so label it as such, and stop users blaming future
>>> support issues on the distro/app "wrongly detecting" their device.
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Hewitt <>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-sm1-khadas-vim3l.dts | 4 ++++
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-sm1-khadas-vim3l.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-sm1-khadas-vim3l.dts
>>> index 4b517ca72059..f46f0ecc37ec 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-sm1-khadas-vim3l.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-sm1-khadas-vim3l.dts
>>> @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@
>>> regulator-boot-on;
>>> regulator-always-on;
>>> };
>>> +
>>> + sound {
>>> + model = "SM1-KHADAS-VIM3L";
>>> + };
>> The sound card is the same so I don't see why the sm1 board should have
>> a different name. If you are not happy with the name, please update it
>> in the common file.
> It’s a nice-to-have not a must-have, but the current LE images that are
> in circulation use 5.7 with the previous board-correct name so I was
> looking for continuity. We do see user forum reports (infrequent but
> recurring) of wrongly detected hardware with other SoC platforms where
> similar name inheritance surfaces the ‘wrong’ device name in GUIs, and
> I like anything that avoids support work.
> I’d suggest KHADAS-VIM3-VIM3L as a common name, but then it’s the only
> device in the current device-tree set that is not prefixed with the SoC
> identifier, which (OCD) feels wrong.

True, but turns out there's nothing SoC specific about this sound block
since it's identical across SoCs, so specifying the SoC is being too

OTOH, while I agree it looks "wrong", it's pretty common in Linux DT to
have the SoC prefix to mean only that it's "compatible" with that SoC,
not that it *is* that SoC.

However, I agree that that can lead to confusion with end users, so
since this change has not functional change, and only a UX issue in
userspace, I'm fine to apply it.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-02 20:46    [W:0.047 / U:2.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site