Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ASOC: Unify code style for platform_device_id arrays

Cezary Rojewski <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.imx,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-sound,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 7/23/2026 7:30 AM, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> Hello Cezary,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 07:55:26PM +0200, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
>> On 7/20/2026 8:23 AM, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
>>
>>>    sound/soc/au1x/db1200.c                |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/codecs/adau7118-hw.c         |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/codecs/bt-sco.c              | 10 +++-------
>>>    sound/soc/codecs/wcd934x.c             |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/fsl/imx-pcm-rpmsg.c          |  6 +++---
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/da7219.c    |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/dmic.c      |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/es8336.c    |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/hdaudio.c   |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/i2s_test.c  |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/max98357a.c |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/max98373.c  |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/max98927.c  |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/nau8825.c   |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/pcm3168a.c  |  6 ++----
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/probe.c     |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt274.c     |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt286.c     |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt298.c     |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5514.c    |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5640.c    |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5663.c    |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/rt5682.c    |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/intel/avs/boards/ssm4567.c   |  2 +-
>>>    sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c                |  2 +-
>>
>> This change is outstanding when compared to patches 1-4 which follow the
>> per-driver approach.  I'd expect one driver per scope e.g.: Intel's avs
>> split away from the rest.
> 
> Well, patches 1 and 2 primarily follow the one patch per type of change
> approach that happen to only affect one driver each. In the v1 thread I
> was asked to split out split out the amd/acp bits which resulted in
> patches 3 and 4. (And just now I notice you also replied and asked to
> split out intel/avs, too, which I missed. Sorry!)
> 
> Conceptually I think one commit per driver is the right approach[1] but
> most maintainers/reviewers seem to favour one commit adapting one thing
> for all drivers in a subsystem. And in my experience no matter how you
> make it, you get a reply to change.

Couldn't agree more with the last one.  Happens to us all :)

> Will split out intel/avs for v3 and maybe hit the sweet spot then.
Thank you.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.