[PATCH 6/9] spi: fsl_dspi: add new compatible fsl,ls1021a-v1.0-dspi

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 11:35:25PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2021-08-31 20:32, schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 05:40:25PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > The offical ls1028a binding of the driver uses the following as
> > 
> > Same typo as before.
> > 
> > > compatibles:
> > >   compatible = "fsl,ls1028a-dspi", "fsl,ls1021a-v1.0-dspi";
> > > 
> > > Add the missing compatible to the driver and update the device tree.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael at walle.cc>
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/fsl_dspi.c b/drivers/spi/fsl_dspi.c
> > > index 8fe3508c64..23d812f476 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/spi/fsl_dspi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/spi/fsl_dspi.c
> > > @@ -654,6 +654,7 @@ static const struct dm_spi_ops fsl_dspi_ops = {
> > > 
> > >  static const struct udevice_id fsl_dspi_ids[] = {
> > >  	{ .compatible = "fsl,vf610-dspi" },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "fsl,ls1021a-v1.0-dspi" },
> > 
> > Okay, so you say it is pointless to add the "fsl,ls1028a-dspi"
> > compatible string as well, since the U-Boot driver will match on the
> > fallback compatible, and that is absolutely sufficient, since U-Boot
> > will never implement any of the LS1028A specifics (DMA) anyway.
> > I'm fine with that.
> 
> I'll add that to the commit message in the next version.

There is a subtler point to be made.
While in the case of lpuart, there is that difference between Linux and
U-Boot, in that:
- Linux sets endianness based on compatible string
- U-Boot sets endianness based on "little-endian" property
For the dspi, it is different. Both Linux and U-Boot set endianness
based on the "big-endian" property. So that's why both the LS1021A and
LS1028A DSPI modules work with the same compatible string. Quite
inconsistent, but it is what it is.