RE: [PATCH V2 7/8] dts: fsl: add imx7ulp evk support

["A.s. Dong" <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>]

Hi Shawn & Sascha,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A.s. Dong
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:14 PM
[...]
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:26 AM
> [...]
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it.
> > > There's no extra effort to use it. And we probably could take ULP as
> > > a special case to test generic binding rather then simply drop it
> > > and drop driver features. Once we get objection from users later, we
> > > still can
> > simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it.
> >
> > We had this same discussion some months ago when we were reviewing
> > i.MX8 support.
> >
> > I don't see the value in doing pinctrl differently on i.MX7ULP.
> >
> 
> I thought the situation is different as ULP actually already supports generic
> binding before that discussion.
> 
> > > Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices.
> > > MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28.
> > > And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28.
> >
> > Yes, but these are legacy platforms.
> >
> > For new ones, we should try to keep consistency, just like we
> > discussed during
> > i.MX8 review.
> 
> So the question is whether it's necessary to switch generic binding back to the
> legacy one for ULP. Personally I'm not strongly against this, but I need some
> confirmation from Shawn and Sascha.
> 
> Shawn & Sascha, would you make a judgement call?
> If you also strongly request that, I will try to make it patch to test Linus W.
> Hopefully our agreement could satisfy Linus W.
> 

Would you please let me know if you're all okay with this?

Regards
Dong Aisheng

> Regards
> Dong Aisheng