Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: mfd: atmel,flexcom: Add new compatible string for lan966x

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 06/06/2022 15:28, Kavyasree.Kotagiri@microchip.com wrote:
>>> LAN966x SoC flexcoms has two optional I/O lines. Namely, CS0 and CS1 in
>>> flexcom SPI mode. CTS and RTS in flexcom USART mode. These pins
>>> can be mapped to lan966x FLEXCOM_SHARED[0-20] pins and usage
>> depends on
>>> functions being configured.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kavyasree Kotagiri <kavyasree.kotagiri@microchip.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/mfd/atmel,flexcom.yaml           | 21 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,flexcom.yaml
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,flexcom.yaml
>>> index 221bd840b49e..6050482ad8ef 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,flexcom.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,flexcom.yaml
>>> @@ -16,7 +16,9 @@ description:
>>>
>>>  properties:
>>>    compatible:
>>> -    const: atmel,sama5d2-flexcom
>>> +    enum:
>>> +      - atmel,sama5d2-flexcom
>>> +      - microchip,lan966x-flexcom
>>
>> Your new v1 is here worse than old v2, where this was just simple
>> extension of existing enum. Why did you change it?
>>
> I introduced new compatible string for lan966x and also I have new DT properties 
> "microchip,flx-shrd-pins" and "microchip,flx-cs-names".

v1 also had the new compatible, hadn't it? The difference is in the enum
- before you did not modify this line. Less code in the diff...


Best regards,
Krzysztof