| Message ID | 20250104-imx9-machine-v1-1-18a78e41456b@nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | update i.MX95 machine compatible | expand |
On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible > firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller. > Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to > indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager. I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are aarch64 so why not adding that compatible? How this generic compatible would be used? And by what exactly? All this must be explained in the commit msg. Best regards, Krzysztof
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 > compatible > > On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible > > firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller. > > Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to > > indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager. > > I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are > aarch64 so why not adding that compatible? > > How this generic compatible would be used? > > And by what exactly? There will be more i.MX9 chips with System Manager. I would not expand the list here each time to support a new SoC. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c#L508 https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx-scmi.c#L290 > > All this must be explained in the commit msg. If upper is ok, I will include in V2. Thanks, Peng. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
On 06/01/2025 03:51, Peng Fan wrote: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 >> compatible >> >> On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: >>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> >>> >>> i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible >>> firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller. >>> Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to >>> indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager. >> >> I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are >> aarch64 so why not adding that compatible? >> >> How this generic compatible would be used? >> >> And by what exactly? > > There will be more i.MX9 chips with System Manager. I would > not expand the list here each time to support a new SoC. > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c#L508 > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx-scmi.c#L290 Problem is that compatible is way too generic to be used by Linux drivers. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml index 3713175548637ec17561c068932123c558776435..4f4def9ccdd6211461238d90bc0d1a85fd77a440 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml @@ -1354,6 +1354,7 @@ properties: - enum: - fsl,imx95-19x19-evk # i.MX95 19x19 EVK Board - const: fsl,imx95 + - const: fsl,imx-sm - description: i.MXRT1050 based Boards items: