On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:59:47AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > | $ git grep fu540-c000-uart
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml: - sifive,fu540-c000-uart
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml: compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:"sifive,fu540-c000-uart". This way, if SoC-specific
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt: compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi: compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi: compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
> > | drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c: { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },
> >
> > note that the driver has a trailing 0 in the binding while the yaml
> > description and the DT part does not.
> > The 'sifive,uart' has a trailing 0 where the 0 denotes the version UART
> > IP.
> >
> > Was this also intended for the fu540-c000-uart binding? Should the 0 be
> > added everywhere or removed from the driver?
>
> I suspect that the driver is what's incorrect, given there's little
> value in putting the IP version in the SoC-specific compatible as it's
> a fixed implementation. I'd change the driver to match the bindings.
Agreed
- Paul
