Hi Mac, Aisheng,

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
Sent: 2021年7月15日 20:07
To: Dong Aisheng <redacted>
Cc: Joakim Zhang <redacted>; Aisheng Dong
[off-list ref]; devicetree [off-list ref];
moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE
[off-list ref]; dl-linux-imx [off-list ref];
Sascha Hauer [off-list ref]; Rob Herring [off-list ref];
Shawn Guo [off-list ref]; linux-can@vger.kernel.org;
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: can: flexcan: fix imx8mp compatbile

On 15.07.2021 19:36:06, Dong Aisheng wrote:

quoted

Then should it be "fsl,imx8mp-flexcan", "fsl,imx8qxp-flexcan" rather
than only drop "fsl,imx6q-flexcan"?

The driver has compatibles for the 8qm, not for the 8qxp:

|	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8qm-flexcan", .data =
&fsl_imx8qm_devtype_data, },
|	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8mp-flexcan", .data =
|&fsl_imx8mp_devtype_data, },

AFAIK, we first design the i.MX8QM FlexCAN and later i.MX8QXP reuses IP from i.MX8QM, so there is no difference for them.

IMHO, IP design is always backwards compatible, then we need list each as fallback compatible string? I think it's unnecessary.

Best Regards,
Joakim Zhang

Marc

--
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |