On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:24:13AM +0200, claudiu beznea wrote:
> On 16.02.2024 09:56, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 16/02/2024 06:58:10+0000, Mihai.Sain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi
> >>> index 269e0a3ca269..c030b318985a 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi
> >>> @@ -958,6 +958,30 @@ i2c9: i2c@600 {
> >>> };
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> + flx10: flexcom@e2820000 {
> >>> + compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-flexcom";
> >>
> >> My comment here was ignored:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240214-robe-pregnancy-a1b056c9fe14@spud/
> >>
> >> The SAMA7G5 has the same flexcom controller as SAMA5D2 MPU.
> >>
> >
> > Still, it needs its own compatible plus a fallback to
> > atmel,sama5d2-flexcom
>
> I agree with this. Though, flexcom documentation is subject to YAML
> conversion (a patch has been re-posted these days [1] and *maybe* it will
> be integrated this time). And there are multiple SoC DTs that need to be
> updated with their own flexcom compatible (lan966x, sam9x60, sama7g5).
>
> To avoid conflicting with the work at [1] and postponing this series we may
> do the update after the [1] is done.
>
> Let me know your thoughts. Either way is fine by me.
I'd be inclined to say that if we are gonna take a shortcut here, then
this patch should add a specific compatible so that when the yaml
conversion goes through you'll get a warning about this being
undocumented rather than silence.
A resend on the flexcom patch is required though, the rebase was not
done correctly, so maybe Balakrishnan could "atmel,sama7g5-flexcom"
add with a fallback to "atmel,sama5d2-flexcom" while they're fixing
it up?
Cheers,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
