[PATCH 0/2] Sndcard compatible for qrb2210/qcm2290

[PATCH 0/2] Sndcard compatible for qrb2210/qcm2290

[Alexey Klimov]

This is a small patch series that serves as a preparation for
adding HDMI audio playback support on QRB2210 RB1 board.
The patches here are for sound subsystem. The other series
will focus on qcom DT files.

The previous series where one of the patches here were taken from is
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20250302-rb1_hdmi_sound_first-v1-0-81a87ae1503c@linaro.org/
and sndcard compable patch was added as new one. Both are basically
done as new ones.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
---
Alexey Klimov (2):
      dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards
      ASoC: qcom: sm8250: add qrb2210-sndcard compatible string

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
 sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c                                  | 1 +
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
---
base-commit: 4a71531471926e3c391665ee9c42f4e0295a4585
change-id: 20251007-qrb2210-qcm2290-sndcard-da54245aae3f

Best regards,
-- 
Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>

[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Alexey Klimov]

Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.

Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
@@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
               - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
               - qcom,db845c-sndcard
           - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
+          - const: qcom,qrb2210-sndcard
       - items:
           - enum:
               - qcom,sm8550-sndcard
@@ -37,6 +41,7 @@ properties:
           - qcom,qcs8275-sndcard
           - qcom,qcs9075-sndcard
           - qcom,qcs9100-sndcard
+          - qcom,qrb2210-sndcard
           - qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard
           - qcom,qrb5165-rb5-sndcard
           - qcom,sc7180-qdsp6-sndcard

-- 
2.47.3

[PATCH 2/2] ASoC: qcom: sm8250: add qrb2210-sndcard compatible string

[Alexey Klimov]

Add "qcom,qrb2210-sndcard" to the list of recognizable devices.
Use "qcm2290" as name to let UCM to use it later. QRB2210 RB1
and other QCM2290-based boards can use this sndcard compatible.

Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
---
 sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c b/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c
index f5b75a06e5bd20e00874f4cd29d1b947ee89d79f..bf71d9e4128873fd956750e71311a357d60099a8 100644
--- a/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c
+++ b/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c
@@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ static int sm8250_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 static const struct of_device_id snd_sm8250_dt_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "fairphone,fp4-sndcard", .data = "sm7225" },
 	{ .compatible = "fairphone,fp5-sndcard", .data = "qcm6490" },
+	{ .compatible = "qcom,qrb2210-sndcard", .data = "qcm2290" },
 	{ .compatible = "qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard", .data = "sm4250" },
 	{ .compatible = "qcom,qrb5165-rb5-sndcard", .data = "sm8250" },
 	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-sndcard", .data = "sm8250" },

-- 
2.47.3

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 07/10/2025 10:26, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.


You explained here what you did, but you should explain why. I don't
quite get why SoC sound card and RB1 sound card are both needed. I would
just go with one.

Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. For bindings, the
preferred subjects are explained here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html#i-for-patch-submitters

> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Alexey Klimov]

On Tue Oct 7, 2025 at 2:45 AM BST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/10/2025 10:26, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
>> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
>> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
>
>
> You explained here what you did, but you should explain why. I don't
> quite get why SoC sound card and RB1 sound card are both needed. I would
> just go with one.


I wanted to go with none in the first place and just make it rb2
sndcard compatible (as a fallback). Then Dmitry suggested to follow other
sndcards patterns and implmenet it like this.

There is also at least one qrb2210/qcm2290-based board -- UNO Q and at this
point I can't say if it will need separate compatble or can use
qcom,qrb2210-sndcard as a fallback.


> Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. For bindings, the
> preferred subjects are explained here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html#i-for-patch-submitters

So the order in subject should be reversed. Got it.

Thanks,
Alexey

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/10/2025 11:40, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> On Tue Oct 7, 2025 at 2:45 AM BST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 07/10/2025 10:26, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>>> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
>>> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
>>> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
>>
>>
>> You explained here what you did, but you should explain why. I don't
>> quite get why SoC sound card and RB1 sound card are both needed. I would
>> just go with one.
> 
> 
> I wanted to go with none in the first place and just make it rb2
> sndcard compatible (as a fallback). Then Dmitry suggested to follow other
> sndcards patterns and implmenet it like this.

But this does not match other sound cards either. You add here RB1
compatible, which is not used. Look at SM8750 - the front compatible is
used.

Whatever you decide, please explain in the commit msg the rationale,
because currently it looks different than standard/typical choice.

> 
> There is also at least one qrb2210/qcm2290-based board -- UNO Q and at this
> point I can't say if it will need separate compatble or can use
> qcom,qrb2210-sndcard as a fallback.
> 
> 
>> Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. For bindings, the
>> preferred subjects are explained here:
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html#i-for-patch-submitters
> 
> So the order in subject should be reversed. Got it.

Not entirely, there is no prefix sound.
`git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory your patch is
touching.



Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: qcom: sm8250: add qrb2210-sndcard compatible string

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> Add "qcom,qrb2210-sndcard" to the list of recognizable devices.
> Use "qcm2290" as name to let UCM to use it later. QRB2210 RB1
> and other QCM2290-based boards can use this sndcard compatible.
> 
> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
LGTM,


Reviewed-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@oss.qualcomm.com>


--srini> ---
>  sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c b/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c
> index f5b75a06e5bd20e00874f4cd29d1b947ee89d79f..bf71d9e4128873fd956750e71311a357d60099a8 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/qcom/sm8250.c
> @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ static int sm8250_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  static const struct of_device_id snd_sm8250_dt_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "fairphone,fp4-sndcard", .data = "sm7225" },
>  	{ .compatible = "fairphone,fp5-sndcard", .data = "qcm6490" },
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,qrb2210-sndcard", .data = "qcm2290" },
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard", .data = "sm4250" },
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,qrb5165-rb5-sndcard", .data = "sm8250" },
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-sndcard", .data = "sm8250" },
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
> 
> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
>                - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
>                - qcom,db845c-sndcard
>            - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
> +      - items:
> +          - enum:
> +              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
I don't think you need rb1 specific compatible here, unless there this
is totally different to what the base compatible can provide.

--srini> +          - const: qcom,qrb2210-sndcard
>        - items:
>            - enum:
>                - qcom,sm8550-sndcard
> @@ -37,6 +41,7 @@ properties:
>            - qcom,qcs8275-sndcard
>            - qcom,qcs9075-sndcard
>            - qcom,qcs9100-sndcard
> +          - qcom,qrb2210-sndcard
>            - qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard
>            - qcom,qrb5165-rb5-sndcard
>            - qcom,sc7180-qdsp6-sndcard
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 18:08, Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> > Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
> > While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
> > compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
> >
> > Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> > index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> > @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
> >                - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
> >                - qcom,db845c-sndcard
> >            - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
> > +      - items:
> > +          - enum:
> > +              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
> I don't think you need rb1 specific compatible here, unless there this
> is totally different to what the base compatible can provide.

Why do we need to deviate from other platforms which declare
board-specific compat too?

>
> --srini> +          - const: qcom,qrb2210-sndcard

Broken quoting

> >        - items:
> >            - enum:
> >                - qcom,sm8550-sndcard
> > @@ -37,6 +41,7 @@ properties:
> >            - qcom,qcs8275-sndcard
> >            - qcom,qcs9075-sndcard
> >            - qcom,qcs9100-sndcard
> > +          - qcom,qrb2210-sndcard
> >            - qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard
> >            - qcom,qrb5165-rb5-sndcard
> >            - qcom,sc7180-qdsp6-sndcard
> >
>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Alexey Klimov]

On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 8:46 PM BST, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 18:08, Srinivas Kandagatla
> <srinivas.kandagatla@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> > Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
>> > While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
>> > compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
>> >
>> > Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
>> > ---
>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
>> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>> > index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>> > @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
>> >                - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
>> >                - qcom,db845c-sndcard
>> >            - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
>> > +      - items:
>> > +          - enum:
>> > +              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
>> I don't think you need rb1 specific compatible here, unless there this
>> is totally different to what the base compatible can provide.
>
> Why do we need to deviate from other platforms which declare
> board-specific compat too?

There seems to be now a few incompatible suggestions for rb1 sndcard:
- make it compatible/fallback to qcom,sm8250-sndcard (1);
- make it compatible/fallback to qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard (2);
- add separate compatible/enum for rb1 sndcard as qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard (3);
- add base compatible as qcom,qrb2210-sndcard and fallback
rb1 sndcard compatible to it.

The latter one is ruled out because base compatible should be used and
it is not going to.

As far as I can see the last addition went simply with (3).
Which one finally you all want?

Best regards,
Alexey

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 10/17/25 8:35 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 8:46 PM BST, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 18:08, Srinivas Kandagatla
>> <srinivas.kandagatla@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>>>> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
>>>> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
>>>> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>> index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
>>>>                - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
>>>>                - qcom,db845c-sndcard
>>>>            - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
>>>> +      - items:
>>>> +          - enum:
>>>> +              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
>>> I don't think you need rb1 specific compatible here, unless there this
>>> is totally different to what the base compatible can provide.
>>
>> Why do we need to deviate from other platforms which declare
>> board-specific compat too?
> 
> There seems to be now a few incompatible suggestions for rb1 sndcard:
> - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,sm8250-sndcard (1);
> - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard (2);
> - add separate compatible/enum for rb1 sndcard as qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard (3);
> - add base compatible as qcom,qrb2210-sndcard and fallback
> rb1 sndcard compatible to it.
> 
> The latter one is ruled out because base compatible should be used and
> it is not going to.
> 
> As far as I can see the last addition went simply with (3).
> Which one finally you all want?

Am fine with either "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" or "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"
as long as we reflect that correct driver name in machine driver.

traditionally we have SoC level compatible which works fine for 99% of
the boards for that SoC, expectation was that if there is any deviation
or board specific changes required, this can be accommodate using model
information. am fine with board specific compatible too, however am not
okay with both "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" and "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"  or
falling back to another board compatible for various reason one being ucm.

So 1 and 2 re *NOK*

I hope this provides some clarity here.

thanks,
Srini>
> Best regards,
> Alexey
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:27:55PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 10/17/25 8:35 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> > On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 8:46 PM BST, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 18:08, Srinivas Kandagatla
> >> <srinivas.kandagatla@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> >>>> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
> >>>> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
> >>>> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> >>>> index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
> >>>> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
> >>>>                - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
> >>>>                - qcom,db845c-sndcard
> >>>>            - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
> >>>> +      - items:
> >>>> +          - enum:
> >>>> +              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
> >>> I don't think you need rb1 specific compatible here, unless there this
> >>> is totally different to what the base compatible can provide.
> >>
> >> Why do we need to deviate from other platforms which declare
> >> board-specific compat too?
> > 
> > There seems to be now a few incompatible suggestions for rb1 sndcard:
> > - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,sm8250-sndcard (1);
> > - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard (2);
> > - add separate compatible/enum for rb1 sndcard as qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard (3);
> > - add base compatible as qcom,qrb2210-sndcard and fallback
> > rb1 sndcard compatible to it.
> > 
> > The latter one is ruled out because base compatible should be used and
> > it is not going to.
> > 
> > As far as I can see the last addition went simply with (3).
> > Which one finally you all want?
> 
> Am fine with either "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" or "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"
> as long as we reflect that correct driver name in machine driver.
> 
> traditionally we have SoC level compatible which works fine for 99% of
> the boards for that SoC, expectation was that if there is any deviation
> or board specific changes required, this can be accommodate using model
> information. am fine with board specific compatible too, however am not
> okay with both "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" and "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"  or
> falling back to another board compatible for various reason one being ucm.
> 
> So 1 and 2 re *NOK*
> 
> I hope this provides some clarity here.

My preference would be to follow the established pattern, unless there
is a good reason to deviate from it. And... it seems we have several
trends there.

- qcom,SoC-sndcard (with possible fallback to earlier SoC). 35 usages
  out of 49, including the recent ones as X1E8, SM[4567]50, SC8280XP,
  QCS8300 and others

- Two users of qcom,SoC-qdsp6-sndcard, let's ignore them.

- 12 users of Board-specific compat string, which includes RB2, RB3,
  RB5, RB3 Gen2, FP4 and FP5 (and several other platforms). Some (3
  SDM845 devices) of these devices use an SoC compat as a fallback
  string, which adds weight to the first bucket.

The "winner" is obvious, but I couldn't help but notice the lack of
generic approach (and yes, before i grepped '-sndcard' I was under
assumption that the board-specific sndcard is a recommended approach,
looking at the boards and phones I cared most).

TL;DR. Alexey, I'm sorry for the possible misguidance earlier. It seems
this device should also use a generic name "qcom,qcm2290-sndcard" (or
"qcom,qrb2210-sndcard").

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: sound: qcom,sm8250: add QRB2210 and RB1 soundcards

[Alexey Klimov]

On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 12:27 PM BST, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 10/17/25 8:35 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 8:46 PM BST, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 18:08, Srinivas Kandagatla
>>> <srinivas.kandagatla@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/7/25 2:26 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>>>>> Add soundcard compatible for QRB2210 (QCM2290) platforms.
>>>>> While at this, also add QRB2210 RB1 entry which is set to be
>>>>> compatible with QRB2210 soundcard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srini@kernel.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>>> index 8ac91625dce5ccba5c5f31748c36296b12fac1a6..c29e59d0e8043fe2617b969be216525b493458c4 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ properties:
>>>>>                - lenovo,yoga-c630-sndcard
>>>>>                - qcom,db845c-sndcard
>>>>>            - const: qcom,sdm845-sndcard
>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>> +              - qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard
>>>> I don't think you need rb1 specific compatible here, unless there this
>>>> is totally different to what the base compatible can provide.
>>>
>>> Why do we need to deviate from other platforms which declare
>>> board-specific compat too?
>> 
>> There seems to be now a few incompatible suggestions for rb1 sndcard:
>> - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,sm8250-sndcard (1);
>> - make it compatible/fallback to qcom,qrb4210-rb2-sndcard (2);
>> - add separate compatible/enum for rb1 sndcard as qcom,qrb2210-rb1-sndcard (3);
>> - add base compatible as qcom,qrb2210-sndcard and fallback
>> rb1 sndcard compatible to it.
>> 
>> The latter one is ruled out because base compatible should be used and
>> it is not going to.
>> 
>> As far as I can see the last addition went simply with (3).
>> Which one finally you all want?
>
> Am fine with either "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" or "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"
> as long as we reflect that correct driver name in machine driver.
>
> traditionally we have SoC level compatible which works fine for 99% of
> the boards for that SoC, expectation was that if there is any deviation
> or board specific changes required, this can be accommodate using model
> information. am fine with board specific compatible too, however am not
> okay with both "qcom,sm8250-sndcard" and "qcom,qrb4210-rb1-sndcard"  or
> falling back to another board compatible for various reason one being ucm.
>
> So 1 and 2 re *NOK*
>
> I hope this provides some clarity here.

Yes. Thanks. I went with SoC-level compatible in the latest version.

Thanks,
Alexey