On 25/06/2023 10:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 25/06/2023 10:09, guoniu.zhou@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: "Guoniu.zhou" <guoniu.zhou@xxxxxxx> >> >> Add i.MX93 support since it reuse ISI which used in i.MX8M family. >> >> Signed-off-by: Guoniu.zhou <guoniu.zhou@xxxxxxx> > > Subject: Drop duplicated "media:" > >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx-isi.yaml | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx-isi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx-isi.yaml >> index 1ce9440bde32..ddad1d8778f3 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx-isi.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx-isi.yaml >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ properties: >> enum: >> - fsl,imx8mn-isi >> - fsl,imx8mp-isi >> + - fsl,imx93-isi > > Imx93 is a family of devices, not specific device, so I hope you > understand that it is a bit against the recommendation of specific > compatibles and you guarantee that all devices within family will be > identical. And looking more this won't be true. There are significant differences between devices in the "imx93" family: 1. number of A55 cores and their frequency 2. Presence or not of NPU 3. MIPI-CSI or Parallel camera 4. MIPI-DSI, LVDS or Parallel display 5. 1 or 2 Gigabit Ethernet Why NXP just cannot follow standard rules here? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L42 Best regards, Krzysztof
