On 10/7/20 10:43 AM, Lucas Stach wrote: > On Mi, 2020-10-07 at 10:32 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 10/7/20 3:24 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> [...] >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + enum: >>> + - fsl,imx23-lcdif >>> + - fsl,imx28-lcdif >>> + - fsl,imx6sx-lcdif >>> + - fsl,imx8mq-lcdif >> >> There is no fsl,imx8mq-lcdif in drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_drv.c, >> so the DT must specify compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif", >> "fsl,imx28-lcdif" (since imx28 is the oldest SoC with LCDIF V4). >> >> Should the compatible be added to drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_drv.c or >> dropped from the YAML file or neither ? > > Neither. As far as we know the block is compatible, so the DT should > claim that it's compatible to "fsl,imx28-lcdif". However we don't know > if there are any surprises, so we add the SoC specific compatible to be > able to change the driver matching later without changing the DT if the > need arises. For the DT validation to pass the SoC specific compatible > needs to be documented, even if it currently unused by the driver. What in that binding says you should specify compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif", "fsl,imx28-lcdif"; and not e.g. "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif", "fsl,imx23-lcdif" or simply "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif" ?
