On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:42:57PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > The MT8192 UFS controller is compatible with the MT8183 one: > document this by allowing to assign both compatible strings > "mediatek,mt8192-ufshci", "mediatek,mt8183-ufshci" to the UFSHCI node. > > In preparation for adding MT8195 to the mix, the MT8192 compatible > was added as enum instead of const. > > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml | 12 +++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml > index 32fd535a514a..adcd13023866 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml > @@ -14,9 +14,15 @@ allOf: > > properties: > compatible: > - enum: > - - mediatek,mt8183-ufshci > - - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci > + oneOf: > + - items: > + - enum: > + - mediatek,mt8183-ufshci > + - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci > + - items: > + - enum: > + - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci > + - const: mediatek,mt8183-ufshci It's a bit more distruptive since you'll have to modify a dts, but why permit both of these ways of describing the mt8192? Could we drop it from the original enum and no longer allow it in isolation? There shouldn't be any compatibility concerns with doing so.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
