On 04/11/2024 12:29, Andrei Stefanescu wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On 02/11/2024 10:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 10:06:08AM +0200, Andrei Stefanescu wrote:
>>> +static int nxp_siul2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct nxp_siul2_mfd *priv;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!priv)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + priv->num_siul2 = S32G_NUM_SIUL2;
>>> + priv->siul2 = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, priv->num_siul2,
>>> + sizeof(*priv->siul2), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!priv->siul2)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
>>> + ret = nxp_siul2_parse_dtb(pdev);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + return devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
>>> + nxp_siul2_devs, ARRAY_SIZE(nxp_siul2_devs),
>>> + NULL, 0, NULL);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id nxp_siul2_dt_ids[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "nxp,s32g2-siul2" },
>>> + { .compatible = "nxp,s32g3-siul2" },
>>
>> So devices are comaptible? Why doesn't your binding express it?
>
> Yes, as far as I know, there is no difference in the integration
> of the SIUL2 module for S32G2 and S32G3 SoCs. I am not sure how
> to express this compatibility. Should I mention the "nxp,s32g3-siul2"
> compatible as a fallback one?
See example schema. Or any other recent NXP IMX binding.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
