On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 7:02 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21/06/2023 00:09, Yixun Lan wrote:
> >> + apb4: bus@fe000000 {
> >> + compatible = "simple-bus";
> >> + reg = <0x0 0xfe000000 0x0 0x480000>;
> >> + #address-cells = <2>;
> >> + #size-cells = <2>;
> >> + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x0 0x480000>;
> >> +
> >> + uart_A: serial@78000 {
> >> + compatible = "amlogic,meson-t7-uart",
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > if you introduce new compatible string, then at least you need to document it
> > so Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/amlogic,meson-uart.yaml need to be updated
> >
> > but my qeustion here, why bother introducing new compatible string if nothing
> > changed with the compatible data? given the uart is same IP with g12a, can't we just
> > use "amlogic,meson-g12-uart" for this? no only it will reduce the structure length of
> > meson_uart_dt_match[], but also relieve maintainer's review burden?
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L42
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Hi, I did not understand the recommendation here.
Can I add "amlogic,meson-t7-uart" without Documentation changes?
I think Yes, as I can see a few compatible strings in dts that don't
exist anywhere else.
My idea here is to add "amlogic,meson-t7-uart" for future use if ever
created, like if we find a bug in the future that is only relevant to
T7 soc.
But for now, fallback to s4 uart, as it seems to be the same controller.
>From Krzysztof said in the writing-bindings.rst, I am following the rules.
So, what's the path forward here?
Thanks
Lucas
