On Sun, 2017-08-27 at 22:00 +0300, Matthias Brugger wrote:
On 08/19/2017 09:06 PM, sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Sean Wang <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Document the devicetree bindings in 8250.txt for MediaTek BTIF
controller which could be found on MT7622 and MT7623 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/8250.txt | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/8250.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/8250.txt
index 419ff6c..7528d90 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/8250.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/8250.txt
@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ Required properties:
tegra132, or tegra210.
- "nxp,lpc3220-uart"
- "ralink,rt2880-uart"
+ - For MediaTek MT7623, must contain "mediatek,mt7623-btif"
+ - For other MediaTek SoCs , must contain "mediatek,<chip>-btif",
+ "mediatek,mt7623-btif" where <chip> is mt7622.
Hm, to me that's confusing. What about:
"mediatek,mt7623-btif": for MediaTek MT7623
"mediatek,mt7622-btif", "mediatek,mt7623-btif": for MediaTek MT7622
If in the future we have more SoCs that support the BTIF, we should add them
like the mt7622 case.
I had v3, but it should have similar logic and also got ack from Rob
I knew all your logic of adding binding document for all MediaTek
devices, even I alway added MediaTek device in dt-bindings as the way
you mentioned here, but I felt this way is fine for this kind of
dedicated document.
The reason i don't add it as usual is the following. 8250.txt is common
and shared among all uart like devices, so i don't want btif device
occupies too much section and bloat the document when every new MediaTek
SoC is introduced.
So instead I refer to existing Nvidia device added in 8250.txt which I
thought its way is simple, elegant and also using pattern I can use to
add btif devices.