Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] ASoC: SDCA: enable on DT platforms and add Qualcomm WCD9378 (Tambora) codec

[Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 11:11:41AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/07/2026 11:08, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 01:41:57PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 23/07/2026 12:17, Charles Keepax wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 12:42:10AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > Do we really want to take this line? It basically forces us to
> > do "board files" again, which is the problem DT was solving in
> 
> Again? We since long, long, long do board files and they are approved.
> Although now they are called software nodes, but same stuff.

I have mostly seen those used for work arounds where the device
firmware is wrong or missing information. I am not sure I have
seen the sort of extensive use you are suggesting here?

> > the first place. I can't speak for Qualcomm, but at least for
> > our devices the SDCA properties can change a fair amount
> > between different laptops.
> 
> Sure, all properties which are not implied by compatible make sense for DT.

This is likely to be a very fluid set of things, at absolute
best maybe a super set is implied by the compatible but most of
properties can and will be tweaked per SKU.

There are also still plenty of advantages to the things that
are implied by the compatible being in the firmware. One of the
useful features of SDCA is that new hardware could be supported
without needing kernel updates (admittedly we are not quite
there yet on the Linux side but that is still the direction/goal).

> > Also there is the fact SDCA is already a thing and is gaining a
> > fair amount of traction pushing against it does really feel like
> > it is just making life much harder for ourselves.
> 
> I do not understand this comment. I am not pushing against SDCA. I am
> giving you guideline what can go to DT. Are you saying that SDCA somehow
> received review/approval of DT maintainers, so that we are bound by it now?

Obviously not, you guys are the maintainers and thus free to
merge/reject whatever you want. I am just highlighting the
reality that SDCA is now a widely adopted specification and
trying to steer the DT implementation in a direction that bears
no resemblence to that specification is going to be much harder
for everyone involved, likely including DT maintainers.

Thanks,
Charles