On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 01:12:53AM +0000, André Przywara wrote:
On 05/01/2019 18:20, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:56:22PM +0530, Amit Singh Tomar wrote:
UART controller present on S700 is compatible with existing S900 UART, this patch simply adds a proper compatible string so that S900 uart driver can be reused for S700.
Signed-off-by: Amit Singh Tomar amittomer25@gmail.com
drivers/serial/serial_owl.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/serial/serial_owl.c b/drivers/serial/serial_owl.c index 7ead73e..76995bf 100644 --- a/drivers/serial/serial_owl.c +++ b/drivers/serial/serial_owl.c @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ static const struct dm_serial_ops owl_serial_ops = {
static const struct udevice_id owl_serial_ids[] = { { .compatible = "actions,s900-serial" },
- { .compatible = "actions,owl-uart" },
"owl" is the family name for S series SoCs from Actions Semi. There are 3 SoCs so far, S500, S700 and S900. Reason for naming s900-serial was that there are hw difference between S500 (ARMv7) and S900/S700 (ARMv8). So, this should be "actions,s700-serial".
Huh, how so? The Linux DT bindings, which should be authoritative, do not describe a s700 device. Also the Linux DTs use the s900 name. The only difference between the S500 and S900 type seems to be the FIFO size, which U-Boot doesn't care about. As all the DTs I see in the Linux tree have owl-uart in their compatible list, it would actually be sufficient to list just that. This is what Linux' earlycon relies on. But to play safe we could list both here, maybe even add s500-serial, for the sake of completeness.
My argument above was based on the fact that Amit didn't remove "actions,s900-serial" compatible but added "actions,owl-serial". I'm okay with having "actions,owl-serial" for _all_ S series boards.
Thanks, Mani
But we should not invent a new compatible string here.
Cheers, Andre.
Thanks, Mani
{ } };
-- 2.7.4