On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 06:27:57PM +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? > > 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 > | > ? No, that would not be valid json-schema. Rob
