Il 11/04/24 17:07, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:42:57PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
The MT8192 UFS controller is compatible with the MT8183 one:
document this by allowing to assign both compatible strings
"mediatek,mt8192-ufshci", "mediatek,mt8183-ufshci" to the UFSHCI node.
In preparation for adding MT8195 to the mix, the MT8192 compatible
was added as enum instead of const.
Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml
index 32fd535a514a..adcd13023866 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml
@@ -14,9 +14,15 @@ allOf:
properties:
compatible:
- enum:
- - mediatek,mt8183-ufshci
- - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci
+ oneOf:
+ - items:
+ - enum:
+ - mediatek,mt8183-ufshci
+ - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci
+ - items:
+ - enum:
+ - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci
+ - const: mediatek,mt8183-ufshci
It's a bit more distruptive since you'll have to modify a dts, but why
permit both of these ways of describing the mt8192? Could we drop it
from the original enum and no longer allow it in isolation? There
shouldn't be any compatibility concerns with doing so.
Yes, will remove that in v3 :-)
Thanks!
Angelo
