lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] dt-bindings: serial: fsl-lpuart: Add imx93 compatible string
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 6:44 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: serial: fsl-lpuart: Add imx93 compatible
> > string
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 04:13:34PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > >
> > > The lpuart on i.MX93 is derived from i.MX8ULP with some industrial
> > > enhancements, it uses three compatible strings, so update the
> >
> > Looks like it's 2 compatible strings...
>
> Oh, yes. i.MX8ULP/7ULP is same uart IP.
>
> >
> > > compatible string for i.MX93. But for a few instants,
> >
> > s/instants/instances/
> >
> > > DTR_B, DSR_B, DCD_B and RIN_B pins are supported, so use one
> > > compatible string fsl,imx93-lpuart-v2
> >
> > If the differences are just what gets pinned out, then I think the differences
> > should be handled with separate properties. We probably already have some.
> >
> > Plus, while you may have all the above signals, a board design may still only
> > use a subset.
>
> It is SoC integration level with above features not support in some instances,
> so no such signals connected to SoC pin.
>
> Saying LPUART IP itself support DTR/DSR/DCD/RIN, but instance A has the
> feature disabled when doing SoC integration, instance B has the feature enabled
> when doing SoC integration. What's your suggestion with such case?

Unless it changes the register interface in a non-compatible way that
the driver needs to know about, I would not do a different compatible.
For example, register offsets change.

Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-03 20:07    [W:0.105 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site