[PATCH v2 5/8] dt-bindings: ufs: mediatek,ufs: Document MT8192 compatible with MT8183

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:42:57PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> The MT8192 UFS controller is compatible with the MT8183 one:
> document this by allowing to assign both compatible strings
> "mediatek,mt8192-ufshci", "mediatek,mt8183-ufshci" to the UFSHCI node.
> 
> In preparation for adding MT8195 to the mix, the MT8192 compatible
> was added as enum instead of const.
> 
> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno at collabora.com>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml        | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml
> index 32fd535a514a..adcd13023866 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/mediatek,ufs.yaml
> @@ -14,9 +14,15 @@ allOf:
>  
>  properties:
>    compatible:
> -    enum:
> -      - mediatek,mt8183-ufshci
> -      - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci
> +    oneOf:
> +      - items:
> +          - enum:
> +              - mediatek,mt8183-ufshci
> +              - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci
> +      - items:
> +          - enum:
> +              - mediatek,mt8192-ufshci
> +          - const: mediatek,mt8183-ufshci

It's a bit more distruptive since you'll have to modify a dts, but why
permit both of these ways of describing the mt8192? Could we drop it
from the original enum and no longer allow it in isolation? There
shouldn't be any compatibility concerns with doing so.
-------------- 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/20240411/b7507a6f/attachment.sig>