On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 18:27 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> On 05.08.21 08:54, Chester Lin wrote:
> > Add a compatible string for the uart binding of NXP S32G2
> > platforms. Here
> > we use "s32v234-linflexuart" as fallback since the current
> > linflexuart
> > driver still works on S32G2.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chester Lin <clin@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml | 26
> > ++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-
> > linflexuart.yaml
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml
> > index acfe34706ccb..e731f3f6cea4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-
> > linflexuart.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-
> > linflexuart.yaml
> > @@ -21,10 +21,20 @@ allOf:
> >
> > properties:
> > compatible:
> > - description: The LINFlexD controller on S32V234 SoC, which can
> > be
> > - configured in UART mode.
> > - items:
> > - - const: fsl,s32v234-linflexuart
> > + minItems: 1
> > + maxItems: 2
>
> Are these necessary for oneOf?
>
> > + oneOf:
> > + - description: The LINFlexD controller on S32G2 SoC, which
> > can be
> > + configured in UART mode.
> > + items:
> > + - enum:
> > + - fsl,s32g2-linflexuart
> > + - const: fsl,s32v234-linflexuart
>
> This reads inconsistent to me: Either this oneOf is for S32G2 only,
> then
> please turn the enum into a const. Or change the description to "on
> SoCs
> compatible with S32V234" if we expect the enum list to grow.
>
> I believe the idea here was to avoid unnecessary driver compatible
> and
> earlycon compatible additions, while preparing for eventual quirks
> specific to S32G2.
>
> @NXP: Should this be s32g2- like above or s32g274a- specifically? Do
> you
> agree this is a useful thing to prepare here, as opposed to using
> only
> s32v234- in the s32g2* DT?
s32g2- is fine, but the vendor should be nxp, not fsl.
nxp,s32g2-linflexuart
>
> I assume the ordering is done alphabetically as S32G < S32V;
> alternatively we might order S32V234 first and then the compatible
> ones.
>
> > +
> > + - description: The LINFlexD controller on S32V234 SoC, which
> > can be
> > + configured in UART mode.
> > + items:
> > + - const: fsl,s32v234-linflexuart
>
> To minimize this S32G2 patch, would it be valid to do oneOf for the
> single S32V in the preceding patch already? Then we would avoid the
> text
> movement and re-indentation above and more easily see the lines newly
> getting added for S32G2.
>
> >
> > reg:
> > maxItems: 1
> > @@ -41,8 +51,16 @@ unevaluatedProperties: false
> >
> > examples:
> > - |
> > + /* S32V234 */
>
> Could this be:
> - description: S32V234
> |
> ?
>
> > serial@40053000 {
> > compatible = "fsl,s32v234-linflexuart";
> > reg = <0x40053000 0x1000>;
> > interrupts = <0 59 4>;
> > };
> > +
> > + /* S32G2 */
>
> This should not be part of the S32V example, but a new one:
>
> - |
>
> (or with description, as discussed above)
>
> > + serial@401c8000 {
> > + compatible = "fsl,s32g2-linflexuart", "fsl,s32v234-
> > linflexuart";
>
> Potentially affected by naming discussions above.
>
> > + reg = <0x401c8000 0x3000>;
> > + interrupts = <0 82 1>;
> > + };
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
