On 21-11-19 08:17:11, Alexander Stein wrote:

Am Donnerstag, dem 18.11.2021 um 19:04 -0600 schrieb Rob Herring:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 07:46:55PM +0200, Abel Vesa wrote:

quoted

Add i.MX8DXL lpuart compatible to the bindings documentation.

Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <
abel.vesa@nxp.com

quoted

---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl-lpuart.yaml | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl-

lpuart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl-
lpuart.yaml
index dc1f0e07cbd4..fa8a602ccb22 100644

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl-lpuart.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl-lpuart.yaml

@@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ properties:
       - items:
           - const: fsl,imx8qm-lpuart
           - const: fsl,imx8qxp-lpuart
+      - items:
+          - const: fsl,imx8dxl-lpuart
+          - const: fsl,imx8qxp-lpuart
+          - const: fsl,imx7ulp-lpuart

I'm confused why 8dxl is compatible with 7ulp, but 8qm is not? From
the 
driver, it looks like the difference is clocks.

There is a difference between 8qm and 7ulp regarding the clocks. Are
they still considered compatible? Depending on the answer [1] might not
be the correct solution for earlycon regression on 8qm.

In NXP's tree, they are not compatible.

See here:

https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/linux-imx/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8qm-ss-dma.dtsi?h=lf-5.10.y#n9

Best regards,
Alexander

[1] 
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2021-November/696770.html