On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 01:26:51PM +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote: > Hi Conor, > > On 1/28/24 18:38, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 03:55:12PM +0100, Farouk Bouabid wrote: > > > RS485 can have a receiver-enable gpio (rx-enable-gpios). When rs485 is > > > enabled, this gpio, if provided, must be driven active while receiving. > > > However when RS485 is disabled this gpio should not have an undefined > > > state. In that case, as DE and RE pins can be connected both to this gpio, > > > if its state is not properly defined, can cause unexpected transceiver > > > behavior. > > > This binding depend on rx-enable-gpios to be implemented. > > > > Why do you need a dedicated property for this when there exists a device > > specific compatible for the uart on both of the affected rockchip > > systems? > > > > This has nothing to do with Rockchip's IP but the HW design of our > carrierboard, so using the "rockchip,px30-uart" for that (which I assume is > what was suggested here?) is incorrect since it'll also apply to PX30, > RK3399 and RK3588-based Q7 SoCs we manufacture. > > Did I understand the suggestion correctly? Yes you did. That explanation for not being able to use the compatibles makes sense. However, I can't give you an ack, because reading the commit message gives me the same feeling as looking at this photo: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/f8jyuz/nothing_in_this_image_is_identifiable/ Sorry, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
