> >> > >> On 25/06/2023 11:48, Sherry Sun wrote: > >>> LPUART driver adds a new compatible string for imx8ulp, and imx93 is > >> > >> What driver adds or not, is not really correct argument for compatibility. > >> There are plenty of compatible devices which have both device ID > >> entries in the driver. Why would you drop their compatibility between > >> each other? It does not work like that... Provide clear rationale for this. > > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > We take imx7ulp lpuart as the basic version IP, then imx8ulp adds some > improved features based on the imx7ulp lpuart IP. > > Actually imx8ulp can also work with the imx7ulp version, we can say it is > compatible with imx7ulp, but we need to enable those new features by > default on imx8ulp, so we added the imx8ulp-lpuart compatible in lpuart > driver. So for this case, maybe compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-lpuart", > "fsl,imx7ulp-lpuart" is correct for imx8ulp platform, right? > > > > Then we have the imx93 family with the same lpuart version as imx8ulp, so > how should we handle the compatible string for imx93 platform? Maybe > compatible = "fsl,imx93-lpuart", "fsl,imx8ulp-lpuart", "fsl,imx7ulp-lpuart"? > But three compatible strings looks too long for me, so I want to drop > imx7ulp-lpuart and take imx8ulp-lpuart as the basic compatible string for > imx93 and later others imx9 series, I am not sure if it is suitable, some > suggestions here will be appreciate, thanks! > > > > Wrap your responses. > > So write that the reason of this change is because looks too long for you and > we will judge that rationale. Three compatibles is still fine. > Hi Krzysztof, Got it, thanks for your suggestion, I will use three compatibles for imx93. Best Regards Sherry
