On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:50:18 +0100
Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday 15 January 2022 00:02:11 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Pali Rohár (2021-10-15 23:42:10)
> > >
> > > If I was designing this driver and DTS bindings I would have choose
> > > something like this:
> > >
> > > uart@0x12000 {
> >
> > Drop the 0x
> >
> > > reg = <0x12000 0x18>, <0x12200 0x30>;
> > > clock-controller {
> > > ...
> > > };
> >
> > Drop this node and put whatever properties are inside into the parent
> > node.
> >
> > > serial1 {
> > > ...
> > > status = "disabled";
> > > };
> > > serial2 {
> > > ...
> > > status = "disabled";
> > > };
> > > };
> > >
> > > Meaning that 0x12000 node would be 3 subnodes and all registers would be
> > > defined in top level nodes and would be handled by one driver.
> > >
> > > This is really how hardware block looks like. But it is not backward
> > > compatible...
> >
> > Sounds good to me. I presume we need the serial child nodes so we can
> > reference them from the stdout-path?
>
> Yes, exactly, separate nodes for serial1 and serial2 are still required.
>
> But dropping clock controller is not possible as for higher baudrates we
> need to use and configure uart clock controller. Without it we just get
> comparable feature support which is already present in driver.
What Stephen means is making clock controller out of the uart node
directly. No need to add separate subnode just for clock controller.
Marek
