Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] ASoC: dt-bindings: cs42l42: Allow referenced dai-common properties

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 04/11/2026 11:58, James Calligeros wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 November 2026 8:52:38 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time 
> Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 04/11/2026 11:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 05:39:50PM +1000, James Calligeros wrote:
>>>> We may need to define both #sound-dai-cells and sound-name-prefix on some
>>>> machines where this codec is part of a simple DAI. Allow this by
>>>> refrencing
>>>> dai-common.yaml and allowing its properties to be used.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: James Calligeros <jcalligeros99@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs42l42.yaml | 5 ++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs42l42.yaml
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs42l42.yaml index
>>>> ab4c7d22dc0e..4ac0af34c464 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs42l42.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs42l42.yaml
>>>> @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ title: Cirrus Logic CS42L42 audio CODEC
>>>>
>>>>  maintainers:
>>>>    - patches@opensource.cirrus.com
>>>>
>>>> +allOf:
>>>> +  - $ref: dai-common.yaml#
>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>  description:
>>>>    The CS42L42 is a low-power audio codec designed for portable
>>>>    applications.
>>>>    It provides a high-dynamic range, stereo DAC for audio playback and a
>>>>    mono
>>>>
>>>> @@ -193,7 +196,7 @@ required:
>>>>    - VL-supply
>>>>    - VA-supply
>>>
>>> Missing dai-cells constraint
>>
>> Heh, I already asked for this two weeks ago.
>>
>> I do not see how you responded to my comment, dropping everything from
>> DT patchwork.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> 
> Given that the binding did not have a constraint for this originally, it
> was my impression that adding one would best go in another patch unrelated
> to this series. If you think it's fine to add here then I can simply fix this
> for v5.

Can be separate patch preceding this one, because adding constraint
later would be an ABI break/impact.


Best regards,
Krzysztof