On 16.07.2021 02:04:56, Joakim Zhang wrote: > > 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, Hopefully the IP blocks of the i.MX8Q* are compatible, but the other flexcan IP core are not. > then we need list each as fallback compatible string? I think it's > unnecessary. In the DTs we usually use the name of the SoC we're just describing as the first compatible, and add a second compatible with the oldest SoC having this IP core or an IP core that is compatible (so that the driver works). As the imx8mp needs the DISABLE_MECR quirk it's not compatible with 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