Hi Wolfram, > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: mardi 25 mars 2025 08:51 > To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thierry Bultel <thierry.bultel.yh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > thierry.bultel@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] serial: sh-sci: Add support for RZ/T2H SCI > > > > > > > > +config SERIAL_RZ_SCI > > > > > > > > > > I think this name is too generic. Most RZ-variants so far do not > > > > > have this SoC. Would 'RZT2H' work or is it too narrow then? > > > > > > > > This is too narrow, because for instance the RZ/N2H , which is > > > > very similar, has the same SCI > > > > > > You know the differences better, what could be a suitable name? > > > > Please consider RZ/G3E and RZ/V2H SCI as well as it is almost similar > IP. > > So, I am thinking to not use a name based on SoC but based on feature like > SERIAL_SCI_32BIT or something. But I don't know the HW details enough to > make the best possible name or maybe this is a bogus idea. This seems a little bit confusing, and like said in former discussions, the 32 bits registers are not the main difference. Here are the known SoCs that have this IP, up to now: RZ/T2H RZ/N2H RZ/G3E RZ/V2H So that seems reasonable to keep RZ in the name, even there are other RZ SoCs that do not have it. The HW documentation does not mention a better name, or revision, so, the suggestion is to arbitrarily consider it as a new 'T2' type. Would SERIAL_RZ_SCI_T2 (and rz-sci-t2 for the driver) be specific enough ? Thanks ! Thierry
