On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 08:32:42AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 06:25:00PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:23:30PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 01:21:58PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:18:58PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 01:10:52PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:26:05PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > > > > > The UART of SG2044 is modified version of the standard Synopsys > > > > > > > DesignWare UART. The UART on SG2044 relys on the internal divisor > > > > > > > and can not set right clock rate for the common bitrates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add compatibles string for the Sophgo SG2044 uarts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml | 4 ++++ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml > > > > > > > index 4cdb0dcaccf3..6963f89a1848 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml > > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml > > > > > > > @@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ properties: > > > > > > > - brcm,bcm11351-dw-apb-uart > > > > > > > - brcm,bcm21664-dw-apb-uart > > > > > > > - const: snps,dw-apb-uart > > > > > > > + - items: > > > > > > > + - enum: > > > > > > > + - sophgo,sg2044-uart > > > > > > > + - const: snps,dw-apb-uart > > > > > > > > > > > > Why does each vendor have an items entry of its own? Seems like needless > > > > > > clutter of the file IMO, except for the renesas bit. > > > > > > > > > > I just follow others when writing this binding. I think it may need > > > > > another patch to fix this problem, right? > > > > > > > > Yeah. But I'd hold off to see if someone gives a rationale for it being > > > > done this way before sending that. I've not deleted this thread, and > > > > will send an ack if someone justifies why the binding is written like > > > > this. > > > > Well, Rob doesn't think they should be separate so please add that > > additional patch in your next version. > > > > Thanks, > > Conor. > > It is OK for me. I will add a fix patch in the next version. Can > I add you with suggested-by tag in this fix patch? If you want, but I don't really care for one.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
