On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2014-02-19 16:00 GMT-08:00 Jonas Gorski <jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -857,6 +861,12 @@ static int bcm_uart_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static const struct of_device_id bcm63xx_of_match[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm63xx-uart" },
>>
>> From my understanding, this should be "brcm,bcm6345-uart", because
>> this kind of uart appeared first on bcm6345 (well, maybe bcm6335, no
>> idea which one of these two was first, but the latter was never
>> supported in mainline anyway).
>
> That's right, in fact, I think it might be desirable to handle both
> compatible string, just as a hint that it is compatible with the
> entire bcm63xx family. Would that work for you?
I think using a "generic" compatible string is rather frowned upon
(what do you do if there is eventually a bcm63xx chip with an
incompatible uart?), but I'm no device tree expert.
Jonas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
