On 30/11/2021 18:43, Rob Herring wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:13:21 +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:

quoted

Add constants for choosing USIv2 configuration mode in device tree.
Those are further used in USI driver to figure out which value to write
into SW_CONF register. Also document USIv2 IP-core bindings.

Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
---
Changes in v2:
  - Combined dt-bindings doc and dt-bindings header patches
  - Added i2c node to example in bindings doc
  - Added mentioning of shared internal circuits
  - Added USI_V2_NONE value to bindings header

 .../bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml      | 135 ++++++++++++++++++
 include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h  |  17 +++
 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
 create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h

My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):

yamllint warnings/errors:

dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.example.dts:35.39-42.15: Warning (unique_unit_address): /example-0/usi@138200c0/serial@13820000: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /example-0/usi@138200c0/i2c@13820000)

Rob,

The checker complains about two nodes with same unit-address, even
though the node name is different. Does it mean that our idea of
embedding two children in USI and having enabled only one (used one) is
wrong?

  usi0: usi@138200c0 {
    // enabled device/child
    serial@13820000 {
      status = "okay";
    };

    // disabled device, keep for reference and for boards which
    // would like to use it
    i2c@13820000 {
      status = "disabled";
    };
  };


Best regards,
Krzysztof