[RFC] Inconsistent sifive,fu540-c000-uart binding.

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior bigeasy at linutronix.de
Mon Mar 4 02:59:47 PST 2024


| $ git grep fu540-c000-uart
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:          - sifive,fu540-c000-uart
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:        compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:"sifive,fu540-c000-uart".  This way, if SoC-specific
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:    compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
| drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:    { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },

note that the driver has a trailing 0 in the binding while the yaml
description and the DT part does not.
The 'sifive,uart' has a trailing 0 where the 0 denotes the version UART
IP.

Was this also intended for the fu540-c000-uart binding? Should the 0 be
added everywhere or removed from the driver?

Sebastian



More information about the linux-riscv mailing list