From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shawn.guo@freescale.com (Shawn Guo) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:29:56 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: dts: imx: correct sdma compatbile for imx6sl and imx6sx In-Reply-To: References: <1404456361-8197-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@freescale.com> <20140704145500.GJ30239@dragon> Message-ID: <20140707052955.GK30239@dragon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 12:47:46PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: > > >> However, I still have a question: wouldn't it be better to describe > >> the compatible string as: > >> compatible = "fsl,imx6sl-sdma", "fsl,imx6q-sdma", "fsl,imx35-sdma"; ? > > > > No, it wouldn't be better or necessary. > > I have some trouble understanding when/if the three elements need to > be passed into the compatible string. > > For example: on mx6sl ssi node: > > ssi1: ssi at 02028000 { > compatible = "fsl,imx6sl-ssi", > "fsl,imx51-ssi", > "fsl,imx21-ssi"; I would say either one below is correct. - compatible = "fsl,imx6sl-ssi", "fsl,imx51-ssi", "fsl,imx21-ssi"; - compatible = "fsl,imx6sl-ssi", "fsl,imx51-ssi"; But when commit 98ea6ad2edd2 (ARM: dts: imx6: use imx51-ssi) updates the compatible, it might be better to just replace "fsl,imx21-ssi" with "fsl,imx51-ssi". > > However on mx6sx node we have: > > ssi1: ssi at 02028000 { > compatible = "fsl,imx6sx-ssi", "fsl,imx21-ssi"; > > Which one is correct? Care to explain? This one is incorrect now. The "fsl,imx21-ssi" should be replaced by "fsl,imx51-ssi" per commit above. Care to send a patch for it? Shawn