On 08.09.21 21:01, Trent Piepho wrote: > On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 6:52 AM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Extend match tables and function definitions for i.MX USB, ATF, >> MCI, NVMEM, pinctrl and serial drivers for the i.MX8M Nano. >> >> There is no special handling required for those, compared with >> the mini. > > It shouldn't be necessary to add them when there is no special > handling. The device tree should list the earlier type they are > compatible with as well. For example, every fsl,imx8*-usdhc I see in > a device tree then lists fsl,imx7d-usdhc additionally. I agree. I just searched for imx8mm and replicated the lines. > Though the Barebox driver does NOT list fsl,imx7d-usdhc. It works on > the fsl,imx7d-usdhc because that is compatible with the > fsl,imx6sl-usdhc. > > Really, the error would seem to be the NXP devicetrees only listing > imx7d as a compatible instead of going back to imx6sl. The upstream device trees could be extended, but that's out of scope for barebox support. I don't think we should hardcode this into the barebox device tree. > It is also interesting that in Barebox, the imx7d uses the imx6sl > compat entry, and that entry includes ESDHC_FLAG_ERR004536. While the > imx8* is supposedly imx7d compatible, it uses the imx6sx entry that > lacks that flag. I think the error here is that imx7d does not have > this erratum. But barebox doesn't seem to do anything different respective to that flag. What would you suggest we do here (in barebox)? Cheers, Ahmad > > _______________________________________________ > barebox mailing list > barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
