[PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: serial: snps-dw-apb-uart: Add Sophgo SG2044 uarts

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 08:32:42AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 06:25:00PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:23:30PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 01:21:58PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:18:58PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 01:10:52PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:26:05PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > > > > > The UART of SG2044 is modified version of the standard Synopsys
> > > > > > > DesignWare UART. The UART on SG2044 relys on the internal divisor
> > > > > > > and can not set right clock rate for the common bitrates.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Add compatibles string for the Sophgo SG2044 uarts.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama at gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml          | 4 ++++
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml
> > > > > > > index 4cdb0dcaccf3..6963f89a1848 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml
> > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml
> > > > > > > @@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ properties:
> > > > > > >                - brcm,bcm11351-dw-apb-uart
> > > > > > >                - brcm,bcm21664-dw-apb-uart
> > > > > > >            - const: snps,dw-apb-uart
> > > > > > > +      - items:
> > > > > > > +          - enum:
> > > > > > > +              - sophgo,sg2044-uart
> > > > > > > +          - const: snps,dw-apb-uart
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why does each vendor have an items entry of its own? Seems like needless
> > > > > > clutter of the file IMO, except for the renesas bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I just follow others when writing this binding. I think it may need
> > > > > another patch to fix this problem, right?
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah. But I'd hold off to see if someone gives a rationale for it being
> > > > done this way before sending that. I've not deleted this thread, and
> > > > will send an ack if someone justifies why the binding is written like
> > > > this.
> > 
> > Well, Rob doesn't think they should be separate so please add that
> > additional patch in your next version.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Conor.
> 
> It is OK for me. I will add a fix patch in the next version. Can
> I add you with suggested-by tag in this fix patch?

If you want, but I don't really care for one.
-------------- 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-riscv/attachments/20241023/dac7652a/attachment.sig>