On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 06:37:22AM +0000, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > On 12/07/2023 20:26, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:42:13PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > > >> + value, i.e., supported SoC(s) are imx8ulp, imx93. > > >> + > > >> +properties: > > >> + compatible: > > >> + enum: > > >> + - fsl,imx-ele > > > > > > This looks like a generic compatible, not a specific one, but you use > > > it on the imx8ulp. I would have expected that you would have something > > > like "fsl,imx8ulp-ele" for that. > > > > Yeah, this one looks generic, so not what we expect. > > This change left un-changed in V4. It is "fsl,se-fw", instead of "fsl,imx8ulp-ele". > I will change in V5. That's a generic compatible too, so no different to "fsl,imx-ele". What is the reason for avoiding the SoC-specific "fsl,imx8ulp-ele"? > > >> + - fsl,imx93-ele
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
