On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:19:34AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:19:12PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

It adds device tree data parsing support for imx tty/serial driver.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kerr <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <redacted>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
---
 .../bindings/tty/serial/fsl-imx-uart.txt           |   21 +++++
 drivers/tty/serial/imx.c                           |   81 +++++++++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/tty/serial/fsl-imx-uart.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/tty/serial/fsl-imx-uart.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/tty/serial/fsl-imx-uart.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7648e17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/tty/serial/fsl-imx-uart.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+* Freescale i.MX Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART)
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible : should be "fsl,<soc>-uart", "fsl,imx-uart"

I'd make this "fsl,<soc>-uart", "fsl,imx51-uart"

It's better to anchor these things on real silicon, or a real ip block
specification rather than something pseudo-generic.  Subsequent chips,
like the imx53, should simply claim compatibility with the older
fsl,imx51-uart.

(in essence, "fsl,imx51-uart" becomes the generic string without the
downside of having no obvious recourse when new silicon shows up that
is an imx part, but isn't compatible with the imx51 uart.

Shouldn't that be the oldest SoC this core showed up? It might be an academic
question, but it would look a bit funny if mx27 got dt-support and would have a
imx51-uart? The first imx to have this core is the mx1. (Although there are
some cpu_is_mx1() calls used in the driver, but they are still available, or?)

Regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |