Hi, Greg, On 10/11/23 08:48, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:49:16PM +0100, Peter Griffin wrote: >> Add dedicated google-gs101-uart compatible to the dt-schema for >> representing uart of the Google Tensor gs101 SoC. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml >> index 8bd88d5cbb11..72471ebe5734 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml >> @@ -19,11 +19,13 @@ properties: >> compatible: >> oneOf: >> - items: >> + - const: google,gs101-uart >> - const: samsung,exynosautov9-uart >> - const: samsung,exynos850-uart >> - enum: >> - apple,s5l-uart >> - axis,artpec8-uart >> + - google,gs101-uart > > These shouldn't be needed, just declare the device as the same as what We should have SoC specific compatibles so that any further quirks or incompatibilities can be easily addressed. It's not only the IP itself that can differ, it's also the integration of the IP into the final product that could have an influence on the behavior. Cheers, ta > the chip really is (i.e. a samsung uart), that way no .yaml or kernel > driver changes are needed at all. >
