On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 06:27:57PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:

On 05.08.21 08:54, Chester Lin wrote:

quoted

Add a compatible string for the uart binding of NXP S32G2 platforms. Here
we use "s32v234-linflexuart" as fallback since the current linflexuart
driver still works on S32G2.

Signed-off-by: Chester Lin <redacted>
---
 .../bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml  | 26 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml
index acfe34706ccb..e731f3f6cea4 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml

@@ -21,10 +21,20 @@ allOf:
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    description: The LINFlexD controller on S32V234 SoC, which can be
-      configured in UART mode.
-    items:
-      - const: fsl,s32v234-linflexuart
+    minItems: 1
+    maxItems: 2

Are these necessary for oneOf?

quoted

+    oneOf:
+      - description: The LINFlexD controller on S32G2 SoC, which can be
+          configured in UART mode.
+        items:
+          - enum:
+              - fsl,s32g2-linflexuart
+          - const: fsl,s32v234-linflexuart

This reads inconsistent to me: Either this oneOf is for S32G2 only, then
please turn the enum into a const. Or change the description to "on SoCs
compatible with S32V234" if we expect the enum list to grow.

I believe the idea here was to avoid unnecessary driver compatible and
earlycon compatible additions, while preparing for eventual quirks
specific to S32G2.

@NXP: Should this be s32g2- like above or s32g274a- specifically? Do you
agree this is a useful thing to prepare here, as opposed to using only
s32v234- in the s32g2* DT?

I assume the ordering is done alphabetically as S32G < S32V;
alternatively we might order S32V234 first and then the compatible ones.

quoted

+
+      - description: The LINFlexD controller on S32V234 SoC, which can be
+          configured in UART mode.
+        items:
+          - const: fsl,s32v234-linflexuart

To minimize this S32G2 patch, would it be valid to do oneOf for the
single S32V in the preceding patch already? Then we would avoid the text
movement and re-indentation above and more easily see the lines newly
getting added for S32G2.

quoted

 
   reg:
     maxItems: 1

@@ -41,8 +51,16 @@ unevaluatedProperties: false
 
 examples:
   - |
+    /* S32V234 */

Could this be:
  - description: S32V234
    |
?

No, that would not be valid json-schema.

Rob