Hi Han, On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:29:16 -0500 Han Xu <xhnjupt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>>>> But then, adding the type would only require 2-3 lines of change if I > >>>>> add it to the GPMI_IS_MX6 macro... > >>>> > >>>> Then at least add a comment because using type = IMX6SX right under > >>>> gpmi_data_mx7d can trigger some head-scratching. And put my R-B on V2. > >>> > >>> FWIW, I mentioned it in the commit message. > >>> > >>> I think rather then adding a comment it is cleaner to just add IS_IMX7D > >>> and add it to the GPMI_IS_MX6 macro. That does not need a comment since > >>> it implicitly says we have a i.MX 7 but treat it like i.MX 6 and it is a > >>> rather small change. Does that sound acceptable? > >> > >> Sure, that's even better, thanks. > >> > >> btw isn't there some single-core mx7 (mx7s ?) , maybe we should just go > >> with mx7 (without the d suffix). I dunno if it has GPMI NAND though, so > >> maybe mx7d is the right thing to do here ... > >> > > > > There is a Solo version yes, and it has GPMI NAND too. However, almost > > all i.MX 7 IPs have been named imx7d by NXP for some reason (including > > compatible strings, see grep -r -e imx7 Documentation/), so I thought I > > stay consistent here... > > Hi Guys, > > Yes, there should be a i.MX7 Solo version with one core fused out. IMO, can > we use QUIRK to distinguish them rather than SoC name. I know I also sent > some patch set with SoC Name but I prefer to use QUIRK now. Not sure what this means. Are you okay with Stefan's v2? Regards, Boris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
