On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 01:47:25PM +0300, Andrei Stefanescu wrote: > Hi, > > On 23/09/2024 00:07, Conor Dooley wrote: > > 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. > > I will add another compatible: "nxp,s32g3-siul2-gpio" for the S32G3 SoC. We currently > also have the SIUL2 pinctrl driver in upstream with only one compatible: > "nxp,s32g2-siul2-pinctrl". Should I also send a separate patch to add an S32G3 compatible > to it? > That would be great, thanks.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
