On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 07:12:29AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >On 06/01/2025 03:51, Peng Fan wrote: >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 >>> compatible >>> >>> On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: >>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible >>>> firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller. >>>> Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to >>>> indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager. >>> >>> I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are >>> aarch64 so why not adding that compatible? >>> >>> How this generic compatible would be used? >>> >>> And by what exactly? >> >> There will be more i.MX9 chips with System Manager. I would >> not expand the list here each time to support a new SoC. >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c#L508 >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx-scmi.c#L290 > >Problem is that compatible is way too generic to be used by Linux drivers. Is "fsl,imx9-sm" feasible here? Thanks, Peng > >Best regards, >Krzysztof
