On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:48:21AM +0000, Aisheng Dong wrote: > 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? Unless Rob is against the practice we have been used for long time on i.MX, I would keep using it for i.MX8, i.e. instead of introducing a generic compatible for fallback, simply falling on the compatible SoC specified IP block. Shawn
