Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: sound: add bindings for pm4125 audio codec

["Alexey Klimov" <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>]

On Mon Jun 30, 2025 at 9:21 AM BST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/06/2025 18:41, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> 
>>>> +            #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> +            #size-cells = <0>;
>>>> +
>>>> +            audio-codec@f000 {
>>>> +                compatible = "qcom,pm4125-codec";
>>>> +                reg = <0xf000>;
>>>> +                vdd-io-supply = <&pm4125_l15>;
>>>> +                vdd-cp-supply = <&pm4125_s4>;
>>>> +                vdd-pa-vpos-supply = <&pm4125_s4>;
>>>> +                vdd-mic-bias-supply = <&pm4125_l22>;
>>>> +                qcom,micbias1-microvolt = <1800000>;
>>>> +                qcom,micbias2-microvolt = <1800000>;
>>>> +                qcom,micbias3-microvolt = <1800000>;
>>>> +                qcom,rx-device = <&pm4125_rx>;
>>>> +                qcom,tx-device = <&pm4125_tx>;
>>>> +                #sound-dai-cells = <1>;
>>>> +            };
>>>> +        };
>>>> +    };
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* ... */
>>>> +
>>>> +    soundwire@a610000 {
>>>
>>> Drop this and next one.
>> 
>> The audio-codec node supposed to have qcom,{rx,tx}-device properties.
>> If I'll drop it then the example doesn't compile well unless I am missing
>> something?
>
> What did you drop and what did I ask to drop?
>
>> 
>> For example when I removed soundwire tx node completely and dropped
>> qcom,tx-device then:
>
> I did not ask to drop qcom,tx-device.

Dmitry already explained. Ok.

> ...
>
>> 
>>>> +  The audio codec IC found on Qualcomm PM4125/PM2250 PMICs.
>>>> +  It has RX and TX Soundwire slave devices. This bindings is for the
>>>> +  slave devices.
>>>
>>> Last sentence is redundant and makes no sense. Codec has only slave
>>> devices, so how this can be anything else than for slave devices?
>> 
>> This came from other similar files that describe bindings for child codec nodes
>> of soundwire nodes. For example from qcom,wcd937x-sdw.yaml.
>> Should this be rephrased to "This bindings is for the soundwire slave devices." ?
>
> You just pasted the same, so I don't get how you want to rephrase into
> the same sentence.

Not really.
Original sentence: "This bindings is for the slave devices."
Sentence from my email: "This bindings is for the soundwire slave devices."

The difference is 1 word.
If it doesn't work, then maybe any suggestions?

Maybe "This bindings is for audio codec node that must be a child node of the
associated soundwire master node."?

Best regards,
Alexey