On 2020-08-13 03:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Additional compatible strings have been added in DT source for the i.MX6SL, i.MX6SLL, i.MX6UL and i.MX7D without updating the bindings. Most of the upstream DT sources use the fsl,imx28-lcdif compatible string, which mostly predates the realization that the LCDIF in the i.MX6 and newer SoCs have extra features compared to the i.MX28.
Agreed, we should add fsl,imx6sx-lcdif for those devices.
But shouldn't we also keep fsl,imx28-lcdif? From what I can tell, the devices can be driven by a driver only supporting fsl,imx28-lcdif semantics, right?
-- Stefan
Update the bindings to add the missing compatible strings, with the correct fallback values. This fails to validate some of the upstream DT sources. Instead of adding the incorrect compatible fallback to the binding, the sources should be updated separately.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com
.../devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml | 18 +++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml index 202381ec5bb7..ec6533b1d4a3 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mxsfb.yaml @@ -15,11 +15,19 @@ description: |
properties: compatible:
- enum:
- fsl,imx23-lcdif- fsl,imx28-lcdif- fsl,imx6sx-lcdif- fsl,imx8mq-lcdif
oneOf:
- enum:- fsl,imx23-lcdif- fsl,imx28-lcdif- fsl,imx6sx-lcdif- items:- enum:- fsl,imx6sl-lcdif- fsl,imx6sll-lcdif- fsl,imx6ul-lcdif- fsl,imx7d-lcdif- fsl,imx8mq-lcdif- const: fsl,imx6sx-lcdifreg: maxItems: 1