[PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: gpio: add support for NXP S32G2/S32G3 SoCs

[Conor Dooley]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 11:04:22PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 10:58:46PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 03:40:31PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 20/09/2024 15:33, Andrei Stefanescu wrote:

> > > >>> +properties:
> > > >>> +  compatible:
> > > >>> +    items:
> > > >>> +      - const: nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio
> > > >>
> > > >> Commit message and binding description say s32g2 and s32g3, but there's
> > > >> only a compatible here for g2.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, the SIUL2 GPIO hardware is the same for both S32G2 and S32G3 SoCs. I plan
> > > > to reuse the same compatible when I add the SIUL2 GPIO device tree node for
> > > > the S32G3 boards. Would that be ok?
> > > 
> > > There are only few exceptions where re-using compatible is allowed. Was
> > > S32G on them? Please consult existing practice/maintainers and past reviews.
> 
> Just in case this was not clear - comment "please consult existing..."
> was towards Andrei, not you Conor.

Oh I know, I was just passing through and figured I may as well leave a
comment repeating what I said on the other devices :)

> > Pretty sure I had a similar conversation about another peripheral on
> > these devices, and it was established that these are not different fusings
> > etc, but rather are independent SoCs that reuse an IP core. Given that,
> > I'd expect to see a fallback compatible used here, as is the norm.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20240922/93b34c3d/attachment.sig>