Hi, Daniel
> 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?
For i.MX8MM, it just removes the incorrect fallback compatible, for i.MX8MN, it needs
to replace the incorrect fallback compatible in order to support SoC UID read, so I think
this should be 2 separate patch?
Thanks,
Anson.
