On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 6:56 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 23/06/2023 19:53, Lucas Tanure wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:51 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 23/06/2023 10:12, Lucas Tanure wrote: > >>> Amlogic T7 SoCs uses the same UART controller as S4 SoCs and G12A. > >>> There is no need for an extra compatible line in the driver, but > >>> add T7 compatible line for documentation. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Lucas Tanure <tanure@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> .../devicetree/bindings/serial/amlogic,meson-uart.yaml | 4 ++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/amlogic,meson-uart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/amlogic,meson-uart.yaml > >>> index 01ec45b3b406..ad970c9ed1c7 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/amlogic,meson-uart.yaml > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/amlogic,meson-uart.yaml > >>> @@ -50,6 +50,10 @@ properties: > >>> items: > >>> - const: amlogic,meson-g12a-uart > >>> - const: amlogic,meson-gx-uart > >>> + - description: UART controller on T7 compatible SoCs > >> > >> Your description is rather incorrect. This is UART on SoCs compatible > >> with S4, not with T7. Otherwise what do you expect to grow later when > >> adding more compatible devices? Just drop the description, it's kind of > >> obvious when done correctly (but can be misleading if done wrong). > >> > >> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > Sorry, but S4 is already added in another way, which accepts just an > > S4 compatible string. > > But for T7 we need a fallback. > > Could you let me know what you're asking here? Redo S4 and add T7? Or > > do T7 in another different way that I didn't get? > > I comment only about the description, so why touching anything else? You > did not add here T7 compatible SoCs. You added here S4 compatible SoCs. > > > Do you want a v6 patch series? If yes, could you be more clear about > > how you want it? > > No need. If you are going to send v6, you can as well drop the description. > I can't just remove that line, as it doesn't pass the checks. I will change it to S4. > > --- > > This is an automated instruction, just in case, because many review tags > are being ignored. If you do not know the process, here is a short > explanation: > > Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new > versions, under or above your Signed-off-by tag. Tools like b4 can help > here. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the tags. > The upstream maintainer will do that for acks received on the version > they apply. > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L540 > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
