On 2/16/2026 5:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 16/02/2026 16:02, Larisa Grigore wrote:
From: Radu Pirea <[email protected]>
Add optional support for the two clock inputs used by the LINFlexD UART
controller:
- "lin": LIN_BAUD_CLK
- "ipg": LINFLEXD_CLK
The clock inputs are kept optional to maintain compatibility with the
S32V234 platform.
Does S32V234 have the clocks? I don't understand the "maintain
compatibility" in this context. Either you have or you have not clocks,
which should be expressed in schema (: false, see example schema).
Hello Krzysztof,
Thanks for pointing this out! I will update both the schema and the
commit description.
S32V234 does not expose these clocks in its device tree—on this platform
the LINFlexD clocks are set up and enabled by U‑Boot, so they are not
available to the kernel.
The changes in this patch are intended specifically for S32G2/G3, where
the clocks are provided in the DT and required by the driver.
Signed-off-by: Radu Pirea <[email protected]>
Co-developed-by: Larisa Grigore <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Larisa Grigore <[email protected]>
---
.../bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml
index 4171f524a928..885f0b1b3492 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/fsl,s32-linflexuart.yaml
@@ -34,6 +34,14 @@ properties:
interrupts:
maxItems: 1
+ clocks:
+ maxItems: 2
+
+ clock-names:
+ items:
+ - const: lin
+ - const: ipg
+
required:
- compatible
- reg
@@ -48,3 +56,13 @@ examples:
reg = <0x40053000 0x1000>;
interrupts = <0 59 4>;
};
+
+ - |
+ serial@401c8000 {
+ compatible = "nxp,s32g2-linflexuart",
+ "fsl,s32v234-linflexuart";
+ reg = <0x401C8000 0x3000>;
+ interrupts = <0 82 1>;
+ clocks = <&clks 14>, <&clks 13>;
+ clock-names = "lin", "ipg";
Just add the clocks to existing example. No need for new example for
each new property.
+ };
The existing node refers to S32V234 which does not expose any clock
properties in its device tree. Because of this, I couldn’t extend that
example with clocks and clock-names. The additional example is there
only to illustrate the S32G2 case, where the clocks are required and
actually present in the device tree. Should I remove it?
Best regards,
Larisa
Best regards,
Krzysztof
