[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9a2c3cc-49d6-480c-8c57-fffe0cf9d527@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 16:32:34 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@...sung.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
jirislaby@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, jesper.nilsson@...s.com, lars.persson@...s.com,
alim.akhtar@...sung.com, arnd@...nel.org
Cc: andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, geert+renesas@...der.be,
thierry.bultel.yh@...renesas.com, dianders@...omium.org,
robert.marko@...tura.hr, schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, kkartik@...dia.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...s.com,
ksk4725@...sia.com, kenkim@...sia.com, smn1196@...sia.com,
pjsin865@...sia.com, shradha.t@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: serial: samsung: Update
axis,artpec8-uart to use samsung,uart-fifosize
On 11/09/2025 16:16, Ravi Patel wrote:
> Update the axis,artpec8-uart compatible such that it uses the
> samsung,uart-fifosize as required property.
>
> This is to remove the axis,artpec8-uart specific code (which is
> kind of duplicated) from the driver and use the other matching
> exynos8895 uart code for ARTPEC-8.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@...sung.com>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml
> index 1a1f991d5364..08eceaae2921 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml
> @@ -152,7 +152,6 @@ allOf:
> contains:
> enum:
> - apple,s5l-uart
> - - axis,artpec8-uart
> - samsung,exynos4210-uart
> - samsung,exynos5433-uart
You need to start testing patches, because this obviously fails basic
tests. And toolset would tell you if you bothered.
This does not fit documented Samsung SoC maintainer rules (because of (1)).
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists