RE: [PATCH v4 10/13] serial: sh-sci: Add support for RZ/T2H SCI

[Thierry Bultel]

Hi Wolfram,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: mardi 25 mars 2025 08:51
> To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thierry Bultel <thierry.bultel.yh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> thierry.bultel@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] serial: sh-sci: Add support for RZ/T2H SCI
> 
> 
> > > > > > +config SERIAL_RZ_SCI
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this name is too generic. Most RZ-variants so far do not
> > > > > have this SoC. Would 'RZT2H' work or is it too narrow then?
> > > >
> > > > This is too narrow, because for instance the RZ/N2H , which is
> > > > very similar, has the same SCI
> > >
> > > You know the differences better, what could be a suitable name?
> >
> > Please consider RZ/G3E and RZ/V2H SCI as well as it is almost similar
> IP.
> 
> So, I am thinking to not use a name based on SoC but based on feature like
> SERIAL_SCI_32BIT or something. But I don't know the HW details enough to
> make the best possible name or maybe this is a bogus idea.

This seems a little bit confusing, and like said in former discussions,
the 32 bits registers are not the main difference.

Here are the known SoCs that have this IP, up to now:

RZ/T2H
RZ/N2H
RZ/G3E
RZ/V2H

So that seems reasonable to keep RZ in the name, even there are other RZ SoCs that
do not have it.

The HW documentation does not mention a better name, or revision,
so, the suggestion is to arbitrarily consider it as a new 'T2' type.

Would SERIAL_RZ_SCI_T2 (and rz-sci-t2 for the driver) be specific enough ?

Thanks !
Thierry