Hi, On 04.11.25 21:44, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:53 PM Liu Ying <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 10/20/2025, Fabio Estevam wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM Liu Ying <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Strictly speaking, I don't think i.MX6SX LCDIF is compatible with i.MX28 >>>> LCDIF >>>> because at least i.MX28 LCDIF has the version and debug{0,1,2} registers(at >>>> 0x1c0, 0x1d0, 0x1e0 and 0x1f0) while i.MX6SX LCDIF hasn't.
Thanks for pointing this out. In my opinion, these registers are auxiliary and don't really change the compatibility situation as a functional driver can be written without their use, evidenced by the Linux driver doing just fine without using these registers. >>> There are some DT users, such as Barebox that matches against >>> fsl,imx28-lcdif, so we cannot remove it. >> >> Hmmm, it looks like software projects like Barebox don't really follow this >> DT >> binding. Is it possible to fix Barebox to avoid changing this DT binding by >> this patch? I'm assuming that Uboot has already been fixed. > > What do you think? I am sorry my prior feedback ended up stalling this series. There is a lot of regressions happening due to upstream DT changes and I am just trying to raise awareness. Another example I stumbled over today: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ I have submitted a patch[1] to barebox adding explicit i.MX6 SoloX support, so, having expressed my opinion above, please proceed as you see fit. [1]: https://lore.barebox.org/barebox/[email protected]/ Cheers, Ahmad > > Thanks > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
