From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@xxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 1:33 PM > On 6/16/21 1:19 PM, Christoph Niedermaier wrote: >> Send reply also to Rob Herrings +dt email address: >> >> From: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 9:50 PM >> >>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Christoph Niedermaier wrote: >>>> Add DH electronics DHCOM PicoITX and DHCOM DRC02 boards. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Niedermaier <cniedermaier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Cc: robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx >>>> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> To: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> --- >>>> V2: Remove line with fsl,imx6s on the DRC02 Board >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml >>>> index fce2a8670b49..3c4ff79a3be7 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml >>>> @@ -407,6 +407,12 @@ properties: >>>> - const: dfi,fs700e-m60 >>>> - const: fsl,imx6dl >>>> >>>> + - description: i.MX6DL DHCOM PicoITX Board >>>> + items: >>>> + - const: dh,imx6dl-dhcom-picoitx >>>> + - const: dh,imx6dl-dhcom-som >>>> + - const: fsl,imx6dl >>>> + >>>> - description: i.MX6DL Gateworks Ventana Boards >>>> items: >>>> - enum: >>>> @@ -458,6 +464,12 @@ properties: >>>> - const: toradex,colibri_imx6dl # Colibri iMX6 Module >>>> - const: fsl,imx6dl >>>> >>>> + - description: i.MX6S DHCOM DRC02 Board >>>> + items: >>>> + - const: dh,imx6s-dhcom-drc02 >>>> + - const: dh,imx6s-dhcom-som >>>> + - const: fsl,imx6dl >>> >>> fsl,imx6s? >> >> In the first version I had here an additional line with "fsl,imx6s", >> but currently the kernel isn't supporting that compatible. The i.MX6 >> Solo is currently supported by "fsl,imx6dl". So my idea was to add >> both "fsl,imx6dl" and "fsl,imx6s" to match it maybe on a later kernel >> version. If there is no match with the Solo now, it will fall back to >> the i.MX6 DualLite. That is why I had both fsl,imx6s and fsl,imx6dl >> in that order. On Fabio's advice, I removed the line with "fsl,imx6s" >> in version 2. >> Is this what you meant by your comment? > > I didn't notice that at first myself, but I think what Rob means is > > - const: dh,imx6s-dhcom-drc02 > - const: dh,imx6s-dhcom-som > - const: fsl,imx6dl <------ this should be consistent with the two above > > that is > > - const: dh,imx6s-dhcom-drc02 > - const: dh,imx6s-dhcom-som > -- const: fsl,imx6dl > +- const: fsl,imx6s > ^^^^^ > > But that is a bit odd here: > - The MX6S is MX6DL with one CPU core disabled. > - The DRC02 device can only house a SOM with MX6S and NOT with MX6DL > (due to some thermal design consideration or something). > - The kernel discerns the MX6S/MX6DL automatically based on the number > of cores it reads from some register, therefore it only has the > fsl,mx6dl compatible to cover both MX6S and MX6DL. > So, the closest fallback compatible for this device really is the MX6DL, > i.e. fsl,imx6dl. > > So I think this patch is correct as-is, no ? Is this Patch OK?
