On 22/11/2023 15:52, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> +maintainers: >>> + - Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> + >>> +allOf: >>> + - $ref: serial.yaml# >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - brcm,bcm4908-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm4912-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm6756-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm6813-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm6846-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm6855-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm6856-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm6858-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm6878-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm47622-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm63138-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm63146-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm63158-hs-uart >>> + - brcm,bcm63178-hs-uart >>> + - const: brcm,bcmbca-hs-uart >> >> git grep did not find driver for this compatible. Is it in separate >> patchset? > > No. My project based on BCMBCA has been canceled and I don't work on it > full time anymore. I just wanted to fill empty bits I can afford > handling in my free time and complete hardware description in DTS. > > I may still work on some BCMBCA drivers from time to time but as a side > project. This means we cannot use driver to verify whether the fallback is actually suitable. Considering that existing UART bindings do not fallback (brcm,bcm6345-uart, brcm,bcm7271-uart), I don't understand what is the benefit here. Best regards, Krzysztof
