On 10/7/20 3:33 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:55:24AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 10/7/20 10:43 AM, Lucas Stach wrote: >>> On Mi, 2020-10-07 at 10:32 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 10/7/20 3:24 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + enum: >>>>> + - fsl,imx23-lcdif >>>>> + - fsl,imx28-lcdif >>>>> + - fsl,imx6sx-lcdif >>>>> + - fsl,imx8mq-lcdif >>>> >>>> There is no fsl,imx8mq-lcdif in drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_drv.c, >>>> so the DT must specify compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif", >>>> "fsl,imx28-lcdif" (since imx28 is the oldest SoC with LCDIF V4). >>>> >>>> Should the compatible be added to drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_drv.c or >>>> dropped from the YAML file or neither ? >>> >>> Neither. As far as we know the block is compatible, so the DT should >>> claim that it's compatible to "fsl,imx28-lcdif". However we don't know >>> if there are any surprises, so we add the SoC specific compatible to be >>> able to change the driver matching later without changing the DT if the >>> need arises. For the DT validation to pass the SoC specific compatible >>> needs to be documented, even if it currently unused by the driver. >> >> What in that binding says you should specify compatible = >> "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif", "fsl,imx28-lcdif"; and not e.g. "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif", >> "fsl,imx23-lcdif" or simply "fsl,imx8mq-lcdif" ? > > Nothing, until the next patch :-) This patch only handles the YAML > conversion but doesn't fix issues. Good, thanks ! _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
