On 11/09/2019 16:24, Anson Huang wrote:
> Compared to i.MX7D, i.MX8MM has different ocotp layout, so it should
> NOT use "fsl,imx7d-ocotp" as ocotp's fallback compatible, remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm.dtsi | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm.dtsi
> index 5f9d0da..7c4dcce 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm.dtsi
> @@ -426,7 +426,7 @@
> };
>
> ocotp: ocotp-ctrl@30350000 {
> - compatible = "fsl,imx8mm-ocotp", "fsl,imx7d-ocotp", "syscon";
> + compatible = "fsl,imx8mm-ocotp", "syscon";
> reg = <0x30350000 0x10000>;
> clocks = <&clk IMX8MM_CLK_OCOTP_ROOT>;
> /* For nvmem subnodes */
Why not fold the two patches?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
