On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:52 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:25:15PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Oleksij Rempel >> <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > This are currently tested SoCs with imx-mailbox driver. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/fsl,mu.txt | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/fsl,mu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/fsl,mu.txt >> > index 113d6ab931ef..5616d2afca45 100644 >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/fsl,mu.txt >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/fsl,mu.txt >> > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Messaging Unit Device Node: >> > Required properties: >> > ------------------- >> > - compatible : should be "fsl,<chip>-mu", the supported chips include >> > - imx8qxp, imx8qm. >> > + imx6sx, imx7s, imx8qxp, imx8qm. >> > >> This is not scalable. Do we add every new SoC that contains the same controller? >> I think the controller name, if it has one or create a new one like >> 'imx-mu', should be used here. >> So, >> compatible : should be "fsl,imx-mu" > > No, for all the reasons already correctly explained in this thread. > OK. I am curious to see what soc specific fixes we need in future. Thanks. -- 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
