Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: rtc: add schema for NXP S32G2/S32G3 SoCs

[Ciprian Marian Costea]

On 9/12/2024 3:12 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 03:00:20PM +0300, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
> > On 9/12/2024 2:13 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 01:55:34PM +0300, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
> > > > On 9/11/2024 9:22 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:25AM +0300, Ciprian Costea wrote:
> > > > > > From: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch adds the dt-bindings for NXP S32G2/S32G3 SoCs RTC driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > > +properties:
> > > > > > +  compatible:
> > > > > > +    const: nxp,s32g-rtc
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, how come there are not specific compatibles for the two SoCs
> > > > > supported here?
> > > >
> > > > The RTC module is the same for S32G2 and S32G3 SoCs.
> > > > Therefore, I did not wanted to add two compatible strings ('nxp,s32g2-rtc'
> > > > and 'nxp,s32g3-rtc') when there is no actual difference which they could
> > > > target.
> > >
> > > Are these different fusings of the same silicon, or are they distinctly
> > > different SoCs that happen to share an IP block?
> >
> > S32G2 and S32G3 are different SoCs that share the RTC IP block.
>
> In that case, I'd expect there to be two compatibles, one for each SoC.
> One can then fall back to the other, so the driver only has to be aware
> of one compatible. Had they been different fusings of the same silicon,
> thus sharing the same integration etc, a generic compatible would have
> been fine.

I understand your point. I will update accordingly in V2 of this patchset.