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? Best regards, Krzysztof
