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

[Michael Walle]

Am 2021-08-31 23:39, schrieb 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

You mean before this clean-up series?

> 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.

Consistently inconsistent :p

-michael