[PATCH 4/8] dt-bindings: nvmem: sfp: Add compatible binding for TA 2.1 SFPs

[Michael Walle]

Am 2022-04-21 19:56, schrieb Sean Anderson:
> Trust Architecture (TA) 2.1 devices include the LS1012A, LS1021A,
> LS1043A, and LS1046A. The SFP device on TA 2.1 devices is very similar
> to the SFP on TA 3.0 devices. The primary difference is a few fields in
> the control register. Add a compatible string.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson at seco.com>
> ---
> 
>  .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml    | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git
> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
> index e7d1232fcd41..aa277f1eee7e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
> @@ -18,8 +18,13 @@ allOf:
> 
>  properties:
>    compatible:
> -    enum:
> -      - fsl,ls1028a-sfp
> +    oneOf:
> +      - description: Trust architecture 2.1 SFP
> +        items:
> +          - const: fsl,ls1021a-sfp
> +      - description: Trust architecture 3.0 SFP
> +        items:
> +          - const: fsl,ls1028a-sfp

I'm unsure about this one. Esp. if you reuse the fsl,ls1028a-sfp
compatible on other SoCs, there were some endianess issues with
other IP blocks on the ls1028a. So it might be that on the LS1028A
the IP has to accessed in little endian order and for other devices
in big endian. I think we should add one compatible per SoC unless
we know better.

-michael