On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 03:00:20PM +0300, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
> On 9/12/2024 2:13 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 01:55:34PM +0300, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
> > > On 9/11/2024 9:22 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:25AM +0300, Ciprian Costea wrote:
> > > > > From: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch adds the dt-bindings for NXP S32G2/S32G3 SoCs RTC driver.
> > > >
> > > > > +properties:
> > > > > + compatible:
> > > > > + const: nxp,s32g-rtc
> > > >
> > > > Also, how come there are not specific compatibles for the two SoCs
> > > > supported here?
> > >
> > > The RTC module is the same for S32G2 and S32G3 SoCs.
> > > Therefore, I did not wanted to add two compatible strings ('nxp,s32g2-rtc'
> > > and 'nxp,s32g3-rtc') when there is no actual difference which they could
> > > target.
> >
> > Are these different fusings of the same silicon, or are they distinctly
> > different SoCs that happen to share an IP block?
> >
>
> S32G2 and S32G3 are different SoCs that share the RTC IP block.
In that case, I'd expect there to be two compatibles, one for each SoC.
One can then fall back to the other, so the driver only has to be aware
of one compatible. Had they been different fusings of the same silicon,
thus sharing the same integration etc, a generic compatible would have
been fine.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
