Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mfd: nxp-siul2: add support for NXP SIUL2

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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