On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:53:59PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 02:54:22PM +0800, Chester Lin wrote:

quoted

Add bindings for S32G2's evaluation board (S32G-VNP-EVB) and reference
design 2 board ( S32G-VNP-RDB2).

Signed-off-by: Chester Lin <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
index e2097011c4b0..3914aa09e503 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml

@@ -983,6 +983,13 @@ properties:
           - const: solidrun,lx2160a-cex7
           - const: fsl,lx2160a
 
+      - description: S32G2 based Boards
+        items:
+          - enum:
+              - fsl,s32g274a-evb
+              - fsl,s32g274a-rdb2
+          - const: fsl,s32g2

Given this is an entirely different family from i.MX and new?, shouldn't 
it use 'nxp' instead of 'fsl'? Either way,

It sounds good and Radu from NXP has mentioned a similar idea for the
compatible string of linflexuart. To keep the naming consistency, should we
change all 'fsl' to 'nxp' as well? For example, we could rename the fsl.yaml
to nxp.yaml. However, changing all of them would cause some impacts, which will
need more verifications on new strings. Otherwise we would have to tolerate the
naming differences only used by s32g2.

Thanks,
Chester

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Rob