On 14/06/23 20:10, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 13/06/2023 at 20:21, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:17:13PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 13/06/2023 09:04, Manikandan Muralidharan wrote: >>>> Add new compatible string for the XLCD controller on SAM9X7 SoC. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Manikandan Muralidharan<manikandan.m@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-hlcdc.txt | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-hlcdc.txt >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-hlcdc.txt >>>> index 5f8880cc757e..7c77b6bf4adb 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-hlcdc.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-hlcdc.txt >>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Required properties: >>>> "atmel,sama5d3-hlcdc" >>>> "atmel,sama5d4-hlcdc" >>>> "microchip,sam9x60-hlcdc" >>>> + "microchip,sam9x7-xlcdc" >>> Google says sam9x7 is a series, not a SoC. Please add compatibles for >>> specific SoCs, not for series. >> We had this one a few weeks ago, see >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/add5e49e-8416-ba9f-819a-da944938c05f@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> and its parents. Outcome of that seemed to be that using "sam9x7" was >> fine. > > And it's where it begins to be funny, as the LCD is precisely one aspect > where we differentiate between sam9x75, sam9x72 and sam9x70... > So please Manikandan sort this out if difference between these chips > will be better handled with different compatibility string, in > particular about //, LVDS and MIPI-DSI variants! Yes Sure, I will replace the compatible as s/sam9x7/sam9x75/g to handle the different variants of sam9x7 better. > > Regards, > Nicolas > -- Thanks and Regards, Manikandan M.
