Hi Marek, On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:55:24AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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" ? Nothing, until the next patch :-) This patch only handles the YAML conversion but doesn't fix issues. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
