On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:49:07AM +0100, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > 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. "further" work on quirks or incompatibilities can be added when they are found and needed. We don't add stuff for no good reason to the kernel. > 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. This is for the Pixel 6, a device that is no longer even shipping. The "final product" is long stable, so this should not be an issue. thanks, greg k-h
