[linux,v2,04/20] dt-bindings: spi: add PIC64GX SPI/QSPI compatibility to MPFS SPI/QSPI bindings

Commit Message

[e-mail] Sept. 30, 2024, 9:54 a.m. UTC

From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <[e-mail]>

PIC64GX SPI/QSPI are compatible with MPFS SPI/QSPI, just use
fallback mechanism

Signed-off-by: Pierre-Henry Moussay <[e-mail]>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.yaml        | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Conor Dooley Sept. 30, 2024, 1:45 p.m. UTC | #1

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:54:33AM +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
> From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <[e-mail]>
> 
> PIC64GX SPI/QSPI are compatible with MPFS SPI/QSPI, just use
> fallback mechanism
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Henry Moussay <[e-mail]>

Acked-by: Conor Dooley <[e-mail]>

Mark Brown Sept. 30, 2024, 1:52 p.m. UTC | #2

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:54:33AM +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
> From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <[e-mail]>
> 
> PIC64GX SPI/QSPI are compatible with MPFS SPI/QSPI, just use
> fallback mechanism

You've not copied me on the rest of the series so I don't know what's
going on with dependencies.  When sending a patch series it is important
to ensure that all the various maintainers understand what the
relationship between the patches as the expecation is that there will be
interdependencies.  Either copy everyone on the whole series or at least
copy them on the cover letter and explain what's going on.  If there are
no strong interdependencies then it's generally simplest to just send
the patches separately to avoid any possible confusion.

Mark Brown Sept. 30, 2024, 1:53 p.m. UTC | #3

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:54:33AM +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
> From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <[e-mail]>
> 
> PIC64GX SPI/QSPI are compatible with MPFS SPI/QSPI, just use
> fallback mechanism

Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
subsystem, this makes it easier for people to identify relevant patches.
Look at what existing commits in the area you're changing are doing and
make sure your subject lines visually resemble what they're doing.
There's no need to resubmit to fix this alone.

Conor Dooley Sept. 30, 2024, 1:55 p.m. UTC | #4

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:52:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:54:33AM +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
> > From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > PIC64GX SPI/QSPI are compatible with MPFS SPI/QSPI, just use
> > fallback mechanism
> 
> You've not copied me on the rest of the series so I don't know what's
> going on with dependencies.  When sending a patch series it is important
> to ensure that all the various maintainers understand what the
> relationship between the patches as the expecation is that there will be
> interdependencies.  Either copy everyone on the whole series or at least
> copy them on the cover letter and explain what's going on.  If there are
> no strong interdependencies then it's generally simplest to just send
> the patches separately to avoid any possible confusion.

FWIW, you should be okay to take this, there's nothing that depends on
this patch other than dts files and nothing that this patch depends on
in turn.

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.yaml
index ffa8d1b48f8b..62a568bdbfa0 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/microchip,mpfs-spi.yaml
@@ -17,9 +17,14 @@  properties:
   compatible:
     oneOf:
       - items:
-          - const: microchip,mpfs-qspi
+          - enum:
+              - microchip,mpfs-qspi
+              - microchip,pic64gx-qspi
           - const: microchip,coreqspi-rtl-v2
       - const: microchip,coreqspi-rtl-v2 # FPGA QSPI
+      - items:
+          - const: microchip,pic64gx-spi
+          - const: microchip,mpfs-spi
       - const: microchip,mpfs-spi
 
   reg: