Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ASoC: dt-bindings: cs35l45: Adds SYNC properties

On 8/27/26 4:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 27/08/2026 22:07, Ricardo Rivera-Matos wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/27/26 7:31 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 22/08/2026 00:41, Ricardo Rivera-Matos wrote:
>>>> Introduces support for the multidevice synchronization (SYNC)
>>>> bus. The properties introduced allow for the configuration
>>>> of the device's transmitter IDs.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Rivera-Matos <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs35l45.yaml  | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs35l45.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs35l45.yaml
>>>> index 70f6c62aedca..20d758dc442f 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs35l45.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/cirrus,cs35l45.yaml
>>>> @@ -53,6 +53,29 @@ properties:
>>>>        maximum: 3
>>>>        default: 2
>>>>    
>>>> +  sync:
>>>
>>> Same comment. You did not respond to Sashiko report because "it
>>> contradicts itself" is pointless. It did not... unless you meant
>>> irrelevant part about example. But that is just irrelevant to the binding.
>>
>> I will explain the contradiction again. Pay close attention to the word bus.
>>
>> Sashiko says "This commit introduces support for the multidevice
>> synchronization (SYNC) bus".
>>
>> Sashiko and I agree, it is a bus.
>>
>> Sashiko then complains "Is it necessary to use a child node here just to
>> group configuration properties? In Device Tree design, child nodes
>> usually represent distinct hardware components, sub-devices, buses, or
>> standardized structural elements rather than serving as logical folders
>> to group related configuration properties."
>>
>> I am confused, do buses merit a child node or not? This is a
>> contradiction without additional context. Do certain kinds of buses get
>> child nodes and others do not?
>>
>> Sashiko is an automated review tool that is being ambiguous. I need a
>> human maintainer decision made here. Does a bus merit a child node, yes
>> or no?
>>
> 
> I understand now your judgment.
> 
> Skipping then whatever Sashiko invented, I do not see there a bus
> represented by that "sync" node. Bus in DT comes with children, thus
> sync would have children. Or your DEVICE is a bus, then sync would be a
> child of that bus.
> 
> But your description clearly says it is not a bus. It is a "bus
> configuration". Configuration is not a bus and configuration does not
> receive separate device nodes.

Ack, will fix in v5. Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Ricardo