Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] ASoC: tas2781: Add tas5832 support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 02/03/2026 10:44, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 10:27:49AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/03/2026 10:22, Xu, Baojun wrote:
>>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
>>>> Sent: 02 March 2026 16:58
>>>> On 02/03/2026 09:24, Xu, Baojun wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>>>>>> static const struct of_device_id tasdevice_of_match[] = {
> 
>>>>>>>>>       { .compatible = "ti,tas5827" },
>>>>>>>>>       { .compatible = "ti,tas5828" },
>>>>>>>>>       { .compatible = "ti,tas5830" },
>>>>>>>>> +     { .compatible = "ti,tas5832" },
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it is fully compatible with tas5830 and most of the changes here are
>>>>>>>> not needed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it's fully compatible with tas5827/28/30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then above hunk and many others are not needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, because those chips have different on the voltage, so the parameters
>>>>> is different, have to use different firmware binary, so we must identify
>>>>> every chip in the driver.
>>>>
>>>> That would explain other ID tables (and should be briefly mentioned in
>>>> the commit msg), but not this one, because here you do not customize the
>>>> binary at all.
>>>
>>> Hi, we save the chip_id in the dev_name:
>>> strscpy(tas_priv->dev_name, tasdevice_id[tas_priv->chip_id].name,
>>> 	sizeof(tas_priv->dev_name));
>>
>> And where do you see the name in above table?
> 
> I don't know what you are trying to get from them, but I²C enumeration
> on DT platforms works in a way that it takes two tables into account,
> hence, if there is no compatible (with given part number) there will be
> no matching name.
> 
> AFAIK it has to have a compatible to make it work in such a case.
> What did I miss?

Show me please then how the OF table is used here at all to get the name.

> 
> The code in question is i2c_of_match_device_sysfs() call in
> i2c_of_match_device() which does this magic.

Added entry is not by i2c_of_match_device(), so if you use that as
argument we can conclude - this is completely redundant, so remove it.



Best regards,
Krzysztof