On Saturday 15 January 2022 13:05:09 Marek Behún wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:50:18 +0100
> Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 15 January 2022 00:02:11 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Pali Rohár (2021-10-15 23:42:10)
> > > >
> > > > If I was designing this driver and DTS bindings I would have choose
> > > > something like this:
> > > >
> > > > uart@0x12000 {
> > >
> > > Drop the 0x
> > >
> > > > reg = <0x12000 0x18>, <0x12200 0x30>;
> > > > clock-controller {
> > > > ...
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Drop this node and put whatever properties are inside into the parent
> > > node.
> > >
> > > > serial1 {
> > > > ...
> > > > status = "disabled";
> > > > };
> > > > serial2 {
> > > > ...
> > > > status = "disabled";
> > > > };
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > Meaning that 0x12000 node would be 3 subnodes and all registers would be
> > > > defined in top level nodes and would be handled by one driver.
> > > >
> > > > This is really how hardware block looks like. But it is not backward
> > > > compatible...
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me. I presume we need the serial child nodes so we can
> > > reference them from the stdout-path?
> >
> > Yes, exactly, separate nodes for serial1 and serial2 are still required.
> >
> > But dropping clock controller is not possible as for higher baudrates we
> > need to use and configure uart clock controller. Without it we just get
> > comparable feature support which is already present in driver.
>
> What Stephen means is making clock controller out of the uart node
> directly. No need to add separate subnode just for clock controller.
This is already implemented in v7 patch series. Clock controller is
already outside of uart nodes.
