On 3/12/2025 2:14 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/03/2025 18:47, Vikash Garodia wrote: >> >> On 3/11/2025 11:03 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 11/03/2025 13:03, Vikash Garodia wrote: >>>> Not all platforms has a collapsible mx, so use the more generic naming >>>> of mx in the binding. >>>> >>> >>> No, neither tested, nor justified. Read the file. How many platforms do >>> you have there? One. Out of this one platform you claim not all of them >>> have MX collapsible, so you want MX? >> Let say we have one which is non-collapsible, what should be the way in that >> case to use the bindings which differ only in the MX/MXC part ? > > > I don't care about imaginary things. Send patches for real hardware. How > does collapsibility of the domain change the real hardware interface? It does not. I am now thinking to drop this patch altogether, and continue to use MXC as defined in bindings, irrespective of connection to hardware as MX or MXC. For ex SM8550/SA8775P have MXC, while QCS8300 have MX, but again, as you mentioned, these difference just alters some property in DT, binding can remain same. Regards, Vikash
