[RFC] Inconsistent sifive,fu540-c000-uart binding.

[RFC] Inconsistent sifive,fu540-c000-uart binding.

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

| $ git grep fu540-c000-uart
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:          - sifive,fu540-c000-uart
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:        compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:"sifive,fu540-c000-uart".  This way, if SoC-specific
| Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:    compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
| drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
| drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:    { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },

note that the driver has a trailing 0 in the binding while the yaml
description and the DT part does not.
The 'sifive,uart' has a trailing 0 where the 0 denotes the version UART
IP.

Was this also intended for the fu540-c000-uart binding? Should the 0 be
added everywhere or removed from the driver?

Sebastian

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [RFC] Inconsistent sifive,fu540-c000-uart binding.

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1579 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:59:47AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> | $ git grep fu540-c000-uart
> | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:          - sifive,fu540-c000-uart
> | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:        compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:"sifive,fu540-c000-uart".  This way, if SoC-specific
> | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:    compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> | arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> | arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> | drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
> | drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:    { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },
> 
> note that the driver has a trailing 0 in the binding while the yaml
> description and the DT part does not.
> The 'sifive,uart' has a trailing 0 where the 0 denotes the version UART
> IP.
> 
> Was this also intended for the fu540-c000-uart binding? Should the 0 be
> added everywhere or removed from the driver?

I suspect that the driver is what's incorrect, given there's little
value in putting the IP version in the SoC-specific compatible as it's
a fixed implementation. I'd change the driver to match the bindings.

Cheers,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [RFC] Inconsistent sifive,fu540-c000-uart binding.

[Paul Walmsley]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:59:47AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > | $ git grep fu540-c000-uart
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:          - sifive,fu540-c000-uart
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml:        compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:"sifive,fu540-c000-uart".  This way, if SoC-specific
> > | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt:    compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi:                     compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0";
> > | drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
> > | drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c:    { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },
> > 
> > note that the driver has a trailing 0 in the binding while the yaml
> > description and the DT part does not.
> > The 'sifive,uart' has a trailing 0 where the 0 denotes the version UART
> > IP.
> > 
> > Was this also intended for the fu540-c000-uart binding? Should the 0 be
> > added everywhere or removed from the driver?
> 
> I suspect that the driver is what's incorrect, given there's little
> value in putting the IP version in the SoC-specific compatible as it's
> a fixed implementation. I'd change the driver to match the bindings.

Agreed


- Paul


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

[PATCH] serial: sifive: Remove 0 from fu540-c000-uart0 binding.

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

The driver is using "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" as a binding. The device
tree and documentation states "sifive,fu540-c000-uart" instead. This
means the binding is not matched and not used.

This did not cause any problems because the alternative binding, used in
the device tree, "sifive,uart0" is not handling the hardware any
different.

Align the binding in the driver with the documentation.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
On 2024-03-06 18:48:13 [-0800], Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > I suspect that the driver is what's incorrect, given there's little
> > value in putting the IP version in the SoC-specific compatible as it's
> > a fixed implementation. I'd change the driver to match the bindings.
> 
> Agreed

I didn't add any stable/ fixes tags as I guess there is no point in
backporting this.

> - Paul

 drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
index 0670fd9f84967..cbfce65c9d221 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
@@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static int __init early_sifive_serial_setup(struct earlycon_device *dev,
 }
 
 OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,uart0", early_sifive_serial_setup);
-OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
+OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart",
 		    early_sifive_serial_setup);
 #endif /* CONFIG_SERIAL_EARLYCON */
 
@@ -1032,7 +1032,7 @@ static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(sifive_uart_pm_ops, sifive_serial_suspend,
 				sifive_serial_resume);
 
 static const struct of_device_id sifive_serial_of_match[] = {
-	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },
+	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart" },
 	{ .compatible = "sifive,uart0" },
 	{},
 };
-- 
2.43.0

Sebastian

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] serial: sifive: Remove 0 from fu540-c000-uart0 binding.

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2294 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:09:50AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The driver is using "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" as a binding. The device
> tree and documentation states "sifive,fu540-c000-uart" instead. This
> means the binding is not matched and not used.
> 
> This did not cause any problems because the alternative binding, used in
> the device tree, "sifive,uart0" is not handling the hardware any
> different.
> 
> Align the binding in the driver with the documentation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> ---
> On 2024-03-06 18:48:13 [-0800], Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > I suspect that the driver is what's incorrect, given there's little
> > > value in putting the IP version in the SoC-specific compatible as it's
> > > a fixed implementation. I'd change the driver to match the bindings.
> > 
> > Agreed
> 

> I didn't add any stable/ fixes tags as I guess there is no point in
> backporting this.

Every documented device falls back to "sifive,uart0", as you mention
above, so I think that's reasonable.

Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

Thanks,
Conor.

> 
> > - Paul
> 
>  drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
> index 0670fd9f84967..cbfce65c9d221 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
> @@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static int __init early_sifive_serial_setup(struct earlycon_device *dev,
>  }
>  
>  OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,uart0", early_sifive_serial_setup);
> -OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
> +OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart",
>  		    early_sifive_serial_setup);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_SERIAL_EARLYCON */
>  
> @@ -1032,7 +1032,7 @@ static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(sifive_uart_pm_ops, sifive_serial_suspend,
>  				sifive_serial_resume);
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id sifive_serial_of_match[] = {
> -	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },
> +	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart" },
>  	{ .compatible = "sifive,uart0" },
>  	{},
>  };
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
> Sebastian

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] serial: sifive: Remove 0 from fu540-c000-uart0 binding.

[Samuel Holland]

Hi Conor, Sebastian,

On 2024-03-07 11:39 AM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:09:50AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> The driver is using "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" as a binding. The device
>> tree and documentation states "sifive,fu540-c000-uart" instead. This
>> means the binding is not matched and not used.
>>
>> This did not cause any problems because the alternative binding, used in
>> the device tree, "sifive,uart0" is not handling the hardware any
>> different.
>>
>> Align the binding in the driver with the documentation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
>> ---
>> On 2024-03-06 18:48:13 [-0800], Paul Walmsley wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> I suspect that the driver is what's incorrect, given there's little
>>>> value in putting the IP version in the SoC-specific compatible as it's
>>>> a fixed implementation. I'd change the driver to match the bindings.
>>>
>>> Agreed
>>
> 
>> I didn't add any stable/ fixes tags as I guess there is no point in
>> backporting this.
> 
> Every documented device falls back to "sifive,uart0", as you mention
> above, so I think that's reasonable.

Right. In fact this means the sifive,fu540-c000-uart compatible can be removed
from the driver entirely, since the driver would match sifive,uart0 anyway.

Regards,
Samuel

> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.
> 
>>
>>> - Paul
>>
>>  drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
>> index 0670fd9f84967..cbfce65c9d221 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sifive.c
>> @@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static int __init early_sifive_serial_setup(struct earlycon_device *dev,
>>  }
>>  
>>  OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,uart0", early_sifive_serial_setup);
>> -OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0",
>> +OF_EARLYCON_DECLARE(sifive, "sifive,fu540-c000-uart",
>>  		    early_sifive_serial_setup);
>>  #endif /* CONFIG_SERIAL_EARLYCON */
>>  
>> @@ -1032,7 +1032,7 @@ static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(sifive_uart_pm_ops, sifive_serial_suspend,
>>  				sifive_serial_resume);
>>  
>>  static const struct of_device_id sifive_serial_of_match[] = {
>> -	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" },
>> +	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart" },
>>  	{ .compatible = "sifive,uart0" },
>>  	{},
>>  };
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>
>> Sebastian


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] serial: sifive: Remove 0 from fu540-c000-uart0 binding.

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1907 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 11:43:53AM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:
> Hi Conor, Sebastian,
> 
> On 2024-03-07 11:39 AM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:09:50AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> The driver is using "sifive,fu540-c000-uart0" as a binding. The device
> >> tree and documentation states "sifive,fu540-c000-uart" instead. This
> >> means the binding is not matched and not used.
> >>
> >> This did not cause any problems because the alternative binding, used in
> >> the device tree, "sifive,uart0" is not handling the hardware any
> >> different.
> >>
> >> Align the binding in the driver with the documentation.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> >> ---
> >> On 2024-03-06 18:48:13 [-0800], Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>> I suspect that the driver is what's incorrect, given there's little
> >>>> value in putting the IP version in the SoC-specific compatible as it's
> >>>> a fixed implementation. I'd change the driver to match the bindings.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed
> >>
> > 
> >> I didn't add any stable/ fixes tags as I guess there is no point in
> >> backporting this.
> > 
> > Every documented device falls back to "sifive,uart0", as you mention
> > above, so I think that's reasonable.
> 
> Right. In fact this means the sifive,fu540-c000-uart compatible can be removed
> from the driver entirely, since the driver would match sifive,uart0 anyway.

I'm always a bit hesitant when it comes to removing compatibles that are
backed up by a mandatory fallback in where there could be some old
firmware/DT floating around that didn't have the fallback. I think in
this case that's pretty moot though, so ye, it could totally be dropped
from the driver entirely. I'm happy with either, both cases are an
undocumented compatible being removed ;)

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv