On 2020-08-13 03:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Additional compatible strings have been added in DT source for the > i.MX6SL, i.MX6SLL, i.MX6UL and i.MX7D without updating the bindings. > Most of the upstream DT sources use the fsl,imx28-lcdif compatible > string, which mostly predates the realization that the LCDIF in the > i.MX6 and newer SoCs have extra features compared to the i.MX28. Agreed, we should add fsl,imx6sx-lcdif for those devices. But shouldn't we also keep fsl,imx28-lcdif? From what I can tell, the devices can be driven by a driver only supporting fsl,imx28-lcdif semantics, right? -- Stefan > > Update the bindings to add the missing compatible strings, with the > correct fallback values. This fails to validate some of the upstream DT > sources. Instead of adding the incorrect compatible fallback to the > binding, the sources should be updated separately. > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml | 18 +++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml > index 202381ec5bb7..ec6533b1d4a3 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml > @@ -15,11 +15,19 @@ description: | > > properties: > compatible: > - enum: > - - fsl,imx23-lcdif > - - fsl,imx28-lcdif > - - fsl,imx6sx-lcdif > - - fsl,imx8mq-lcdif > + oneOf: > + - enum: > + - fsl,imx23-lcdif > + - fsl,imx28-lcdif > + - fsl,imx6sx-lcdif > + - items: > + - enum: > + - fsl,imx6sl-lcdif > + - fsl,imx6sll-lcdif > + - fsl,imx6ul-lcdif > + - fsl,imx7d-lcdif > + - fsl,imx8mq-lcdif > + - const: fsl,imx6sx-lcdif > > reg: > maxItems: 1
