From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio Estevam Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 7/8] dts: fsl: add imx7ulp evk support Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:25:53 -0300 Message-ID: References: <1540295058-26090-1-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> <1540295058-26090-8-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Dong Aisheng Cc: "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Dong Aisheng , Russell King - ARM Linux , Rob Herring , NXP Linux Team , Sascha Hauer , Fabio Estevam , Shawn Guo , "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong 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. > 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: festevam@gmail.com (Fabio Estevam) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:25:53 -0300 Subject: [PATCH V2 7/8] dts: fsl: add imx7ulp evk support In-Reply-To: References: <1540295058-26090-1-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> <1540295058-26090-8-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong 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. > 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.