Hi Shawn, > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Guo [mailto:shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 5:07 PM > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 05:00:11PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 04:01:20PM +0000, Aisheng Dong wrote: > > > SCU power domain can be used in the same way by IMX8QXP and > IMX8QM SoCs. > > > Let's add a "fsl,scu-pd" fallback compatible string to allow other > > > SoCs to reuse the common part. > > > > This is not the practice we used to match devices with > > compatibilities, i.e. coding the compatible string with the SoC name > > that firstly introduces the device, and use the compatible as fallback for new > SoCs. > This is suggested by Rob that if the future SoCs are likely to be compatible. Then we can use a general fallback compatible string like "fsl,scu-pd". https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10644815/ >From SCU HW protocol point of view, they're indeed compatible. Just varies a bit on the domains numbers. That's why we introduce "fsl,scu-pd". But still keep SoC specific compatible string in case any special tricks to ensure the ABI stability. How do you think? Regards Dong Aisheng > For example, in imx8qm device tree, we can use compatible below to get it > work without change on kernel driver, while we still need to document the > compatible "fsl,imx8qm-scu-pd". > > compatible = "fsl,imx8qm-scu-pd", "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd"; > > Shawn
