netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: can: flexcan: fix imx8mp compatbile

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:06:42 +0200
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:     Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>
Cc:     Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
        Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: can: flexcan: fix imx8mp compatbile

On 16.07.2021 02:04:56, Joakim Zhang wrote:
> > On 15.07.2021 19:36:06, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > 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,

Hopefully the IP blocks of the i.MX8Q* are compatible, but the other
flexcan IP core are not.

> then we need list each as fallback compatible string? I think it's
> unnecessary.

In the DTs we usually use the name of the SoC we're just describing as
the first compatible, and add a second compatible with the oldest SoC
having this IP core or an IP core that is compatible (so that the driver
works).

As the imx8mp needs the DISABLE_MECR quirk it's not compatible with the
imx6.

regards,
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 |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)