Hi Mac, Aisheng,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 2021年7月15日 20:07
> To: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@xxxxxxx>; Aisheng Dong
> <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx>; devicetree <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE
> <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>;
> Sascha Hauer <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: can: flexcan: fix imx8mp compatbile
>
> On 15.07.2021 19:36:06, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > Then should it be "fsl,imx8mp-flexcan", "fsl,imx8qxp-flexcan" rather
> > than only drop "fsl,imx6q-flexcan"?
>
> The driver has compatibles for the 8qm, not for the 8qxp:
>
> | { .compatible = "fsl,imx8qm-flexcan", .data =
> &fsl_imx8qm_devtype_data, },
> | { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mp-flexcan", .data =
> |&fsl_imx8mp_devtype_data, },
AFAIK, we first design the i.MX8QM FlexCAN and later i.MX8QXP reuses IP from i.MX8QM, so there is no difference for them.
IMHO, IP design is always backwards compatible, then we need list each as fallback compatible string? I think it's unnecessary.
Best Regards,
Joakim Zhang
> 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 |
