On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 11:04:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 10:58:46PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 03:40:31PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 20/09/2024 15:33, Andrei Stefanescu wrote: > > > >>> +properties: > > > >>> + compatible: > > > >>> + items: > > > >>> + - const: nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio > > > >> > > > >> Commit message and binding description say s32g2 and s32g3, but there's > > > >> only a compatible here for g2. > > > > > > > > Yes, the SIUL2 GPIO hardware is the same for both S32G2 and S32G3 SoCs. I plan > > > > to reuse the same compatible when I add the SIUL2 GPIO device tree node for > > > > the S32G3 boards. Would that be ok? > > > > > > There are only few exceptions where re-using compatible is allowed. Was > > > S32G on them? Please consult existing practice/maintainers and past reviews. > > Just in case this was not clear - comment "please consult existing..." > was towards Andrei, not you Conor. Oh I know, I was just passing through and figured I may as well leave a comment repeating what I said on the other devices :) > > Pretty sure I had a similar conversation about another peripheral on > > these devices, and it was established that these are not different fusings > > etc, but rather are independent SoCs that reuse an IP core. Given that, > > I'd expect to see a fallback compatible used here, as is the norm. > > Yep. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
