Hi Heiner, On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 11:13 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > >> + - items: > >> + - const: amlogic,meson8m2-aobus-pinctrl > >> + - const: amlogic,meson8-aobus-pinctrl > >> + - items: > >> + - const: amlogic,meson8m2-cbus-pinctrl > >> + - const: amlogic,meson8-cbus-pinctrl > > > > Again, can't have both with and without the fallback allowed. > > > Hi Martin, > > meson8m2 is the only chip version having a fallback for the > pinctrl compatible. Is this fallback really needed? > Looking at the driver it seems that both compatibles > are handled identically. Back in the day we decided to duplicate the Meson8 driver code just to add four new pin functions that are added by the Meson8m2 SoC generation: "eth_rxd2", "eth_rxd3", "eth_txd2", "eth_txd3" The compatible string was defined with a similar approach: since Meson8m2 just adds a few bits to the Meson8 pin controller it's backwards compatible. If the fallback has to be removed then I'm okay with that but I would like to understand it first. So far I thought that Rob basically asked to remove the following two compatible strings from the enum (as they're listed separately with their fallbacks): - amlogic,meson8m2-cbus-pinctrl - amlogic,meson8m2-aobus-pinctrl Best regards, Martin
