On 15.07.2021 09:03:55, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Joakim, > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 8:49 AM Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > FlexCAN on i.MX8MP is not derived from i.MX6Q, instead resues from > > i.MX8QM with extra ECC added. With "fsl,imx6q-flexcan" compatible string, > > i.MX8MP FlexCAN would not work, so remove this fallback compatible string. > > I agree with the removal of "fsl,imx6q-flexcan", but I don't > understand your comment > saying that: > > "With "fsl,imx6q-flexcan" compatible string, i.MX8MP FlexCAN would not work" > > Why? Don't remember exactly why It doesn't work. I think it was a missing quirk that the imx6 doesn't need. > "fsl,imx8mp-flexcan" is passed as the more specific compatible string > and it should match against it first. ACK - but why specify the imx6 in the compatible list if the flexcan IP core isn't compatible with the one of the imx6? regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
