On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2014-02-19 16:00 GMT-08:00 Jonas Gorski <jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> @@ -857,6 +861,12 @@ static int bcm_uart_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +static const struct of_device_id bcm63xx_of_match[] = { >>> + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm63xx-uart" }, >> >> From my understanding, this should be "brcm,bcm6345-uart", because >> this kind of uart appeared first on bcm6345 (well, maybe bcm6335, no >> idea which one of these two was first, but the latter was never >> supported in mainline anyway). > > That's right, in fact, I think it might be desirable to handle both > compatible string, just as a hint that it is compatible with the > entire bcm63xx family. Would that work for you? I think using a "generic" compatible string is rather frowned upon (what do you do if there is eventually a bcm63xx chip with an incompatible uart?), but I'm no device tree expert. Jonas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html