[PATCH] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding

[PATCH] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding

[Mark Brown]

Not quite overlapping changes to the rt5640 binding resulted in duplicate
definitions of the clocks and clock-names properties. Delete one of them,
preferring the simpler one.

Reported-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0e68c5f4-f68d-4544-bc7a-40694829db75@nvidia.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/realtek,rt5640.yaml | 8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/realtek,rt5640.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/realtek,rt5640.yaml
index 02591d6be12b..2eb631950963 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/realtek,rt5640.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/realtek,rt5640.yaml
@@ -44,14 +44,6 @@ properties:
       - realtek,rt5640
       - realtek,rt5639
 
-  clocks:
-    items:
-      - description: phandle and clock specifier for codec MCLK.
-
-  clock-names:
-    items:
-      - const: mclk
-
   reg:
     maxItems: 1
 

---
base-commit: 1a75f24a7f8c2cac9c34126d7221ff59c5265316
change-id: 20260114-asoc-fix-rt5640-dt-clocks-4e3ea6a47631

Best regards,
--  
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 22:08:35 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> Not quite overlapping changes to the rt5640 binding resulted in duplicate
> definitions of the clocks and clock-names properties. Delete one of them,
> preferring the simpler one.
> 
> 

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding
      commit: be5a39e7994ec9f003c8569b670c794a4e5d1551

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 01:05:17PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 22:08:35 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Not quite overlapping changes to the rt5640 binding resulted in duplicate
> > definitions of the clocks and clock-names properties. Delete one of them,
> > preferring the simpler one.
> > 
> 
> Applied to
> 
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git for-next
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1/1] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding
>       commit: be5a39e7994ec9f003c8569b670c794a4e5d1551

Note, in the repository the change has duplicate SoB tag. IIRC Linux Next validation
complains (used to complain?) about inconsistencies or this kind of issues with tags.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 492 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 02:31:41PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 01:05:17PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > [1/1] ASoC: rt5640: Fix duplicate clock properties in DT binding
> >       commit: be5a39e7994ec9f003c8569b670c794a4e5d1551

> Note, in the repository the change has duplicate SoB tag. IIRC Linux Next validation
> complains (used to complain?) about inconsistencies or this kind of issues with tags.

I'll be sure to tell me if it turns out to be a problem :)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]