[PATCH v3 1/3] SoC: es8328-i2c: Add compatible for ES8323

[romain.perier@collabora.com (Romain Perier)]

Le 19/05/2017 ? 08:56, Romain Perier a ?crit :
> Hello,
>
>
> Le 16/05/2017 ? 13:18, Mark Brown a ?crit :
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 04:41:38PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:22:25PM +0200, Romain Perier wrote:
>>>> This commit adds a compatible string for everest,es8323. This is an
>>>> audio codec that is compatible with es8328 and can be found for example
>>>> on the Firefly-RK3288 board.
>>> If it is compatible with the es8328, then that should be a fallback and 
>>> you don't need the driver change.
>> While people don't strictly need the driver change it doesn't do any
>> harm either and encourages people to get the information into the DT
>> that it's a different chip.  Thinking about it it might be good to have
>> a way for something to validate if fallback compatibles are being listed
>> when they should - the drivers could provide the information fairly
>> easily I guess, or it could go into the binding docs once we have a
>> schema format.
>>
>> Even if it doesn't currently make a difference to software I'd rather
>> get the information in there for mixed signal devices like audio CODECs
>> - it's not that unknown to find later that supposedly register identical
>> chips have some differences in the analog which we want to care about.
> So, what should I do for this patch, finally ? fallback or driver change ?
>
> Thanks,
> Romain

To be honest, the doc is not really clear about this, both codecs seem
compatible but I think that's preferable to have a driver change for
this, just in case (Suppose that we discover a difference later...)

Romain